REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Reply to thread

Message

History's taught that alliances, pacts and deals etc are routinely made and broken; from Ceasars crossing of the Rubicon, to Metternichs manouevrings at the Congress of Vienna, and more recent C20 examples would includeo Molotov/ Ribbentrop or Chamberlin/ Hitler etc

History has also taught us that in the name of imperialistic control and the quest for economic primacy, that capitalist countries also tend to engage in aggressive wars. The weapons and personalities of course change, but the underlying tension to control the means of production in the name of accumulation doesn't.

Now obviously it requires more than just a bit of horizon scanning and scenario building to comprehend the circumstances I allude to, but I can certainly see a situation where a Western Europe trading block, that exploits its comparatively poor Eastern satelites as a low cost centre of production in the 'global game' comes to put pressure on a United States, that is essentially doing the same to Mexico. If the European threat encompasses a resurrgent Russia (again history suggests that they periodically take up positions of looking west) then the ingredients are there. The final component of course that plays out under this scenario, is the desire/ need to control an ever diminishing supply of finite natural resources, which leads to first economic disputes and tensions, and possibly at a later date, as things become more desperate, forceful acquisition.

I'm not sure that I'm advocating a pact with either to be honest though. Just suggesting a possible answer the question of why we might need a weapon? and where a future threat is most likely to come from, through an appreciation of the tensions that I believe impact in capitalist global economies?

And just for info Overbruv I think you'll find there's a lot more countries with a nuclear weapons capacity of some degree, than is widely known. h34r: In this case your use of the future tense, is I think you'll find, not appropriate. Where as I'm not necessarily prepared to expand on it or get dragged too far into this aspect, you might ask why with one sixth of the axis evil sitting 90 miles off the Florida Keys have the Americans not lifted a finger to threaten Cuba militarily post 1989

<blockquote data-quote="Warbler" data-source="post: 2092889" data-attributes="member: 65228">History&#039;s taught that alliances, pacts and deals etc are routinely made and broken; from Ceasars crossing of the Rubicon, to Metternichs manouevrings at the Congress of Vienna, and more recent C20 examples would includeo Molotov/ Ribbentrop or Chamberlin/ Hitler etc History has also taught us that in the name of imperialistic control and the quest for economic primacy, that capitalist countries also tend to engage in aggressive wars. The weapons and personalities of course change, but the underlying tension to control the means of production in the name of accumulation doesn&#039;t.Now obviously it requires more than just a bit of horizon scanning and scenario building to comprehend the circumstances I allude to, but I can certainly see a situation where a Western Europe trading block, that exploits its comparatively poor Eastern satelites as a low cost centre of production in the &#039;global game&#039; comes to put pressure on a United States, that is essentially doing the same to Mexico. If the European threat encompasses a resurrgent Russia (again history suggests that they periodically take up positions of looking west) then the ingredients are there. The final component of course that plays out under this scenario, is the desire/ need to control an ever diminishing supply of finite natural resources, which leads to first economic disputes and tensions, and possibly at a later date, as things become more desperate, forceful acquisition.I&#039;m not sure that I&#039;m advocating a pact with either to be honest though. Just suggesting a possible answer the question of why we might need a weapon? and where a future threat is most likely to come from, through an appreciation of the tensions that I believe impact in capitalist global economies?And just for info Overbruv I think you&#039;ll find there&#039;s a lot more countries with a nuclear weapons capacity of some degree, than is widely known.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />h34r:&nbsp; In this case your use of the future tense, is I think you&#039;ll find, not appropriate.&nbsp; Where as I&#039;m not necessarily prepared to expand on it or get dragged too far into this aspect, you might ask why with one sixth of the axis evil sitting 90 miles off the Florida Keys have the Americans not lifted a finger to threaten Cuba militarily post 1989</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Warbler, post: 2092889, member: 65228"] History's taught that alliances, pacts and deals etc are routinely made and broken; from Ceasars crossing of the Rubicon, to Metternichs manouevrings at the Congress of Vienna, and more recent C20 examples would includeo Molotov/ Ribbentrop or Chamberlin/ Hitler etc History has also taught us that in the name of imperialistic control and the quest for economic primacy, that capitalist countries also tend to engage in aggressive wars. The weapons and personalities of course change, but the underlying tension to control the means of production in the name of accumulation doesn't. Now obviously it requires more than just a bit of horizon scanning and scenario building to comprehend the circumstances I allude to, but I can certainly see a situation where a Western Europe trading block, that exploits its comparatively poor Eastern satelites as a low cost centre of production in the 'global game' comes to put pressure on a United States, that is essentially doing the same to Mexico. If the European threat encompasses a resurrgent Russia (again history suggests that they periodically take up positions of looking west) then the ingredients are there. The final component of course that plays out under this scenario, is the desire/ need to control an ever diminishing supply of finite natural resources, which leads to first economic disputes and tensions, and possibly at a later date, as things become more desperate, forceful acquisition. I'm not sure that I'm advocating a pact with either to be honest though. Just suggesting a possible answer the question of why we might need a weapon? and where a future threat is most likely to come from, through an appreciation of the tensions that I believe impact in capitalist global economies? And just for info Overbruv I think you'll find there's a lot more countries with a nuclear weapons capacity of some degree, than is widely known. :ph34r: In this case your use of the future tense, is I think you'll find, not appropriate. Where as I'm not necessarily prepared to expand on it or get dragged too far into this aspect, you might ask why with one sixth of the axis evil sitting 90 miles off the Florida Keys have the Americans not lifted a finger to threaten Cuba militarily post 1989 [/QUOTE]

Verification: 5 + 3 = ?