The 2nd cold war is upon us?... Thoughts and comments?

Greetings folks...

Yep... *shrugs*... with what is actually going on in the Ukraine/Russia/Europe/Africa we are all quite busy here on ATS with our doom porn theories methinks?

So... without any furher ado... let me add my spade of salt... :

I remember as a kid back in the 70s and 80s (even the end of the 60s... yea yea... I am old)... getting from time to time the odd letter in the letterbox describing to our families how to survive a nuclear attack by the Russians... Anyone else remember that...?

I remember my parents describing how we had 3 minutes to completely soak a mattress and hide under the stairs with it on top of us... plus we had to whitewash the front of out house for flashback and also dig a 1 meter deep trench and cover ourselves with 30 cm of soil to protect ourselves from fallout...

Back in those days I lived just down the road from an American early warning radar station based at Menwith hill in North Yorkshire and I remember some Sunday afternoons we would go for a pub lunch located slap bang next to this base (Fewston) and noticing a weird contraption on the wall that emitted a low buzzing noise.

I remember asking as a curious kid back then what it was, to which the landlord of the pub explained to me that in case of nuclear attack the tone would change giving pub dwellers and locals enough time to do what they had to do in the 3 minutes that would lead up to a nuclear explosion.

ALL THAT IN 3 MINUTES...

3 MINUTES AFTER HEARING THIS :



A song that paricularly reminds me of this era is this one (A good old fashioned vinyly recording complete with original scratches... *sighs*) :



More here on Menwith Hill : en.wikipedia.org...

And this : www.cnduk.org...

And this about Echalon : en.wikipedia.org...

Anyways... enough of my rambling about when I was a kid...

In my opinion we are ALREADY into the 2nd cold war... I hear members saying that we are near the 2nd cold war (V 2.0)

I would love to read your ORIGINAL cold war memories and thoughts and comments on this topic respected members from all countries?

Kindest respects

Rodinus

a reply to: Rodinus

I don't think so.. I think we will see something much larger than the Cold War if those imbeciles cannot sort their crap out fast. Russia have laid there cards down with a truce plan directed at Ukraine (A good move if your a logical thinker) so it will be interesting to see how Europe and friends reacts over the next Month or so. Russia are not interested in taking Ukraine even after there admission that they could take Kiev in two weeks. The Ball is in Europes court and I think we should keep a close eye on them and their way of dealing with this.

originally posted by: DarknStormy
a reply to: Rodinus

I don't think so.. I think we will see something much larger than the Cold War if those imbeciles cannot sort their crap out fast. Russia have laid there cards down with a truce plan directed at Ukraine (A good move if your a logical thinker) so it will be interesting to see how Europe and friends reacts over the next Month or so. Russia are not interested in taking Ukraine even after there admission that they could take Kiev in two weeks. The Ball is in Europes court and I think we should keep a close eye on them and their way of dealing with this.

Sadly, what really narks/frustrates/saddens me is that the US and the US driven puppets in the EU are shoving their noses into this conflict without taking particular attention to what else is going on around them???... they are in a titanium lined bubble compared to the rest of the REAL people throughout the world who actually care about their/our childrens future...)

I totally agree that this conflict could lead to a more dangerous pathway... normally the truce should be signed today over here in Europe... I doubt the truce will be respected on one side or the other...

Lets wait for the propaganda from both sides (After a couple of deaths caused by *coughs*... "midirected unintentional bombing of course???" after the signature huh?

You mention month or so... but when sat on the bog this morning my thoughts were *next days or weeks*...

To be continued methinks?

Kindest respects

Rod

A dangerous game of brinkmanship has developed with neither side showing any signs of backing down and seriously trying to seek a diplomatic compromise.

Some of the political rhetoric from both sides is a cause for alarm.

One is reminded of the Cuban crisis of 1962, with a belligerent US demanding that the Soviets remove their missiles "or else"...and the Soviets complying, on the proviso that the US remove theirs from Turkey.

At least then there was a genuine will on both sides to effect a peaceful outcome. There was a kind of mutual respect born of fear, which we don't see today.

The diplomatic language on both sides shows mutual contempt and hostility.

Don't they realise what that could result in?

We need cool heads, diplomatic talks, other countries offering solutions.

Not much sign so far.

a reply to: Rodinus
a reply to: Rodinus

We lived out in the country with no military bases or cities worth striking. However Dad had survived WWll and I remember him telling me and mom that if there was a big explosion (like in nuclear except he said atom bomb) to lay down and shut our eyes while counting to 10 before we even dared to look.. He brought this back up during the Cuban missile crisis and added if we did not shut our eyes and were close to the bomb it could burn out our eyes if we looked.. It was not said to scare but in a matter of fact way to inform. That is really all I remember except our storm shelter was very deep and well constructed... In North Texas it had to be. We were so far out in the sticks there were no sirens.... So other than some of the schools with duck and cover drills it was just another day..

a reply to: DarknStormy

Russia are not interested in taking Ukraine

I disagree.

To them, it's a buffer zone protecting them from the West.

And, while I wouldn't be happy about it, I think Western diplomats need to consider carving the place up in the interests of maintaining stability.

double post

originally posted by: 727Sky
a reply to: Rodinus
a reply to: Rodinus

We lived out in the country with no military bases or cities worth striking. However Dad had survived WWll and I remember him telling me and mom that if there was a big explosion (like in nuclear except he said atom bomb) to lay down and shut our eyes while counting to 10 before we even dared to look.. He brought this back up during the Cuban missile crisis and added if we did not shut our eyes and were close to the bomb it could burn out our eyes if we looked.. It was not said to scare but in a matter of fact way to inform. That is really all I remember except our storm shelter was very deep and well constructed... In North Texas it had to be. We were so far out in the sticks there were no sirens.... So other than some of the schools with duck and cover drills it was just another day..

You touched me there big time... wish that other people can share their stories too?

Kindest respects

Rod

a reply to: CJCrawley

Thanks for your feedback CJ...

Did you live out the original cold war.... Would love to hear your thoughts?

Kindest respects

Rodinus

a reply to: Rodinus

I lived through a lot of it, yes (born 1960).

The concept of MAD (mutual assured destruction) has always been understood, but I sense a different zeitgeist in today's world diplomacy...a dangerous unwillingness to connect with reality.

It's partly Mr Putin who is on a personal mission to stick it to the West, partly Western politicians who are frustrated at Russia's not getting fully on board the globalisation bus.

The first level of any war on the strategy scale, and a cold war is technically a war, as not all wars are violent, is politics. All wars include politics, and most if not all of them are brought about by politics. Just like the Cold War was partly about politics, a 2nd version would be no different. The one thing that was seen during the Cold War was a massive arms race, and this was partly why it was a war in the first place. Military grand strategy, or even lower levels of military strategy, can bring about victory in a war without a shot ever being fired. The strategy of building nuclear arsenals played on the theory of mutually assured destruction, and thus was a deterrent to violent war, which was the main reason the war was considered "cold."

Nuclear weapons stockpiles have been reduced since the time of the Cold War, yet each nation understands that there are still enough nuclear stockpiles to bring about the destruction of the majority of human life in the warring countries, either directly or indirectly, meaning as a result of nuclear fallout, which would cause a decrease in the food supply, potentially the climate, among other drastic possibilities. There have been many, many non-nuclear wars and conflicts fought since the last nuclear weapon was used in 1945, and perhaps these events have acted as a "warm up" exercise for a larger war between two superpowers. Or what I mean is that perhaps a nuclear state would actually wage a conventional war against another nuclear power. During the Cold War this did not seem very likely, although I am not sure a war would have started with the launching of nukes, precisely because of mutually assured destruction.

I do not think we have to worry about one nuclear nation launching a nuclear attack on another nuclear nation, again because of the threat of annihilation on both sides. But I have often pondered whether such nations would get involved in a conventional conflict, would they allow things to progress so far? I think not, because most of us realize what would happen. In such a conventional war there is likely to be one side who gets the best of the other side, and the losing side will be much more apt to launch a nuclear attack. So it would not make sense for one nuclear nation to go to war with another nuclear state, even if they knew they could win a conventional war, precisely because of the threat of a nuclear last ditch effort. Every nation has such a plan. Israel has the Samson Option, which may have been more of a second-strike strategy, I'm not sure, while the USSR had a system called Dead Hand, designed to automatically retaliate in the event of a nuclear attack on their country. The term in military doctrine is called "massive retaliation." Although this has more to do with the idea that the state who is fired upon with nuclear weapons will fire back with a much larger number of nuclear weapons.

And everyone who talks about nuclear disarmament, while they have a point, have to realize what has been common knowledge in military doctrine for many decades now. If you mathematically model, using Game Theory, the nuclear scenarios via a Nash Equilibrium, it becomes readily apparent that a nuclear state has ZERO incentive to do two things: launch an attack against another nuclear nation, or disarm. Again, this common military knowledge, and it could be argued common sense, is known and understood by the military leadership of all nuclear nations. Where am I going with all of this? I just want to establish that any modern war between nuclear states is much more likely to be a "cold" war as opposed to a violent, or "hot" war, which if war is inevitable, gives a little more credence to the idea presented by the creator of this thread. If a war or conflict is to be violent it is much more likely that the violence will be initiated through proxies, or forces that are not linked to the military apparatus of one of the nuclear nations. This is why the US was always arming all these different groups of fighters.

Something people do not understand, even they they often have a point, is that all military leadership studies military strategy. And it has come to be realized that morals and military effectiveness often clash with one another. So while some see military actions as inhumane and brutal, they are justified in terms of military strategy. Not morally justified, but strategically justified. Although something I feel that many forces have failed to grasp, or have failed to effectively put into practice, is when using immoral strategies or tactics actually hurt your grand strategy or political strategy in the long run. For instance, the overwhelming success of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor played a large part in them losing the war. While successful on a tactical or maybe even operational level, when it came to politics it was a horrible move, as this is what motivated the US to demand unconditional surrender in my opinion. Another example would be what is going on with the US in the Middle East. US military leaders have failed to grasp that certain actions hurt them in the long run, as it motivates more civilians, local or otherwise, to join in the fight as combatants against the US.

Anyway, the main question, whether we are headed for another Cold War, is interesting and difficult to answer. I have deduced that it is plausible, but unlikely, if we are talking strictly about a repeat of the real Cold War. If it happens today it will likely not be a nuclear arms race, as we won't be developing new nukes, and it probably won't be building more nukes either. If anything it will be a space-based race or something similar, but not to achieve "firsts," but to establish space-based weapon systems. I still think that is unlikely however, or it is not a top priority or anything, as neither the US nor Russia likely feels like war is as imminent as it was during the Cold War. War is not on the horizon like it was then, despite what is going on in Ukraine. I think this war will be one of economics and proxies. As well as strategic positioning. Such positioning is partly why Russia annexed Crimea. You can win a war via strategy and positioning without a shot being fired. You place yourself in an advantageous position, and the enemy is forced to sue for peace, withdraw, etc. But I definitely do not see a weapons race like was seen in the Cold War. I personally do not feel that tensions between the US and Russia are very high at all, and the geographical and political situation is quite different from what was present during the Cold War before the dissolution of the Soviet Union. I think we will not see things get as terrifying as they did during the Cold War. I do not think things will escalate to such a degree. I mean we came this-> .. close to a nuclear war on two or three occasions.

If we could avoid nuclear war at times such as those, when west hated east and vice versa, we can EASILY avoid a nuclear war now, which means that cold war is not likely to occur at all. If anything we will see a new type of cold war, one that is, again, designed more to hit at the economy and politics of another nation. I mean we have so much technology now. Perhaps we will see a cold war centered around more covert activities such as digital espionage, or digital attacks. Times have changed, and so has the nature of war between modern nuclear states to a limited degree.

It's ironic this could be the 2nd Cold War as it's all about stopping gas exports from Russia to the EU and opening up the market for the US to supply it

Could get very cold for a lot of the population

www.bloomberg.com...

a reply to: Rodinus

I was stationed at RAF Bentwaters (Ipswitch, East Anglia) in the 80's.

I remember one time when our favourite bartender at the NCO Club was suddenly gone. Apparently he was arrested for passing information to the Soviet Embassy. Drunk GI's tend to talk a lot!

It may have been a "cold" war. It may have been a war of ideology, but at the time, we understood each other. We knew what the other sides goals were.

It was a much simpler time then.

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

interesting post...i have a question ...is this a media war ? or a conventional war ?.....i am curious to how much of this is actually happening as opposed to some well trained actors looking to sway public opinion....?

sorry rodinus i am far too young to know what it was like in the cold war ...i was being somewhat shielded...i turn 40 next month....and i intend to shield myself from that too ...

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Propaganda?


Unlike in the past Cold War, we in our modern world have Cable TV and the interwebs, 24/7, 365 of nonstop propaganda doom porn from all sides.


This time around, and yes I lived through the last one, I choose to feed my mind other healthier information.

a reply to: SLAYER69

I choose to feed my mind other healthier information.

i take you do not eat macdonalds...

for someone like me that has grown up in the world of modern communication....what is/was the difference what did they use to sway public opinion back then and how effective was it ?...if i may be as so bold as to ask ?

more to the point how does one differentiate the healthy info from the rest ?

Well I would not call it the Cold War 2 as in something comparable to the first one. A cold war as in what the US has with North Korea and had with Iran sure. The first Cold War was between to close to being equal sides that battled for control of continents, proxy wars and global influence. The Soviet Union had half of Europe, half of Centeral and South America, most of Africa, large parts of asia and most of the Arabs states as its allies/proxies. And the Soviet/Warsaw Pact military out numbered its opponents in just about evey way possible.

Now Russia's influence is limited to few states most of them failing and the others pushing for closer ties to the US. The Arab States, Africa and most of Asia have all moved into the US sphere of influence. And now NATO forces out number the Russians 3 to 1.

So a regional cold war sure. However, nothing at all like the global cold war of the past.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Rodinus

I was stationed at RAF Bentwaters (Ipswitch, East Anglia) in the 80's.


It was a much simpler time then.

OOoooOOOOOO... I remember an exercise in Otterburn with some "ladies" from RAF BENTwaters back in 85...

February if my memory is correct and the poor blokes were on a survival course... I and a fellow colleague caught 2 blokes and made them strip naked before interrogating them in a freezing cold bath of water intended for cows drinking pleasure in the middle of a field at around 2 in the morning for over an hour...

Poor blokes were not told that we were in the middle of a fully blown exercise with our regiment against the Ghurkas...

Kindest respects

Rodinu

At 47, I do remember Cold War 1.0.

As a young kid in the 70's, I didn't see my dad building a bomb shelter or anything like that. He was career Navy, so we moved around a lot, and eventually overseas in the late 70's.

I do remember in school then, being shown this political campaign commercial (that was for Johnson), made 2 years before I was born:



I remember feeling sad for the little girl.

However, it wasn't until I was a teen in the early 80s that I gave it much thought. I lived in Europe there, and most of us knew that if a global nuclear war started, being in Europe, we'd be dead before we even knew what was happening.

However, I must say that it was not until 1983 when I saw this movie, that the impact of a nuclear war really hit me:

The Day After



Later on, while I myself was in the Navy, I remember thinking when the Berlin wall came down, and the USSR fell, thinking: well that's it! We survived! No chance of a global nuclear war now!

How naive I was back then.

a reply to: Rodinus

The age of the drone has antiquated industrial warfare to the same level as the machine gun antiquated the samurai. Within 20 years, angry children will be able to build a device which can assassinate presidents remotely. What will the leaders of our world do when the common person can become a vigilante from the confines of their own living rooms?

The screams you hear from ISIS and from the vast empires of the world are their death rattles. They are trying very hard to make themselves relevant in a world that has no more room for them. We might have another dark age ahead of us yet, but the renaissance that is to come is so startling, that it will disinfect this world with its radiance. Someday, the power of tyrants will evaporate and their hold on the world will crumble and slip like dust between their fingers.

When you distribute the means of production laterally and you over produce the means of production, you quickly find that the great pyramids of this world have been torn down for stone utilized in a thousand building projects and the pharaohs standing on their pedestals are left with an audience of one.