Has Russia become America's traditional enemy?
Why? Like in many other countries we have many highly educated people that are from Russia. It probably a country with similar Western values. In politics though standards are different. Both countries rather view each other as competitors. If USA was an enemy of Russia than people from Russia would not come here? Why do we need to live with enemies if we can live in our home country? I see some hostile people in here who are older and were taught to hate people during Cold War. Germany was an enemy of Russia but not America who was its ally. Stalin would not let Russian people to talk to foreign people. But after Iron Curtain people could talk to whom they want and move where they want.
Terrorism, traditional soldier..?
Government or regular soldiers = trained to follow and carry out/enforce the superiors' orders. Guerillas = people with strong ideological beliefs who are trained to fight in unconventional terrains and execute unconventional tactics against established authority and its military personnel with the intent of establish a new form of leadership. Terrorists = similar to guerillas except that they destroy and kill everything in their path whether military or civilian people. Hope this helps. Although, if I can recall American history, the Americans who fought against British tyranny were considered terrorists by the colonizers.
Which nations are India's allies and enemies?
There are no Allies or Enemies. Remember, you are in nuclear armed 21st century, not in naïve pre-1940 world.Plus, India's Non Aligned Movement makes India an non aligned state (it says :p)But answering the question,Those countries which serve a purpose to India's foreign policies or which are India's alliesIsrael. Middle east superpower, India stands its only trustable ally in South Asia. Trade is quite strong, which includes Defence equipments and agricultural support.Afghanistan. A country that faded with rise of Taliban now considers India as a strong friend. We helped them build Salma dam, rebuilt infastructure and now we are sending wheat via Iran. Afghanistan is important to counter Pakistan.Bhutan. If there is any isolated place on this planet, it has to be Bhutan. Bhutan trusts India on every aspect, from military to foreign policy. Its good to know US communicates to Bhutan via New Delhi.USA. After Americans found Osama having a jaywalk in Pakistan and got feared by rising Chinese influence, US has started moving closer to India. Defence cooperation and Democracy are on top list.Russia India's oldest friend since 60s, has given India a lot of Defence equipments. Russia also helped in other sectors. But post split of USSR, the close friends are distancing, though they are strong.Iran. Alike Afghanistan, Iran is useful to gain access to Central asia and Middle East. India developed the Chabbahar port. Also helpful to counter PakistanJapan. With a common threat of Chinese, Japan has a reason to side with a growing Asian econmy. Nuclear deal, technology, defence cooperation on top.EU An already developed region and a strong developing nation have a reason to be together. India enjoys ambient relations with all EU members.On the other hand of the list come those countries, which posses a threat to India in diplomatic terms.Pakistan. We love them, very much. They want Kashmir, we dont want to give it. And that's all the difference. We have fought four wars, and the clouds of war hover above the nuclear armed nations.China. China is concerned over India taking over as a regional competitor, but they are far ahead. Military conflicts happen and cornerning at international level happen.Well, India has a brilliant Foreign policies of accomodating two opposing polars, like US-Russia and Iran-Israel.And still we are good at that.Indian.Cheers!
What is the difference between traditional war and total war?
"traditional" as in conventional? That would mean non-nuclear while total war usually means all resources are committed to winning, including the use of nukes. At different points in history, the terms were used a little differently.
On balance, is the world a better place because of intervention by the U.S. in foreign affairs post WWII?
I think the fairest way to put it is that it depends on when we're talking about. Withdrawing from the international stage after WWII like we did after WWI probably wasn't an option. Someone had to act as a counterbalance to the Soviet Union, particularly considering the fact that Joseph Stalin was still in charge and would be until 1953. With the 1st World nations of East Asia and Western Europe smashed by years of intense war, we were the only possible choice. By the time nuclear weapons became a major factor in the 1950's, and with decolonization sweeping the globe, there wasn't really any way for America to extricate ourselves from being the "leader of the free world." We made our share of mistakes, but ultimately it had to be done and worked out for the best. A world where the USSR won the Cold War would be a much worse place than a world where the USA won the Cold War; it's difficult to dispute this. Since the Cold War however? I think we should have begun to draw back in our traditional manner. It's one thing to to act as the opposing force to a tyrannical Leninist superpower. It's quite another to play the World's Policemen, stepping into petty little civil wars and trying to stop every atrocity which some group somewhere decides to commit. The "War on Terror" in Iraq and (to a much lesser extent) Afghanistan was a fool's errand. The idea that we could will democracy into existence in nations which have never had it merely by holding elections was a pipe dream. We should have gone into Afghanistan, killed the men responsible for 9/11, and gone home. End of story. Europe and East Asia have long since recovered and, its recent behavior notwithstanding, at this point Russia is an enemy of choice. None of Russia's aspirations have any effect on U.S. sovereignty or trade. China is a rival which must be watched closely, but at this point it isn't an "enemy." Given this fact, it's time for other nations to start taking a much larger role in upholding global order. Instability in the Middle East? Great, what are the Middle Eastern nations doing about it? Russian armies on the march? So what are European governments doing about it? In other words, situations such as these should no longer be considered vital U.S. problems, because they're not. It's time for the U.S. to drastically reduce our commitments around the world, come home, and let the world sort itself out.
In wars, why don't countries just bomb every farm and water supply in the enemy’s country?
War is inevitable, but so is peace.Industries and cities are better targets. Even in war there are often limits on what armies will do. Such overwhelming devastation is likely to cause more problems. Armies need to prepare for the peace that will follow a war. They need some goodwill. Traditionally many armies did take food in countries they attacked. Destroying the farms would reduce their supplies as well.Some countries will destroy their own crops to prevent an enemy capturing food. As was done in Russia and Portugal during the Napoleonic wars. But destroying farms buildings is a little pointless.If an army pays for food it reduces there risk of resistance and guerrilla warfare. In the US civil war the North resorted to taking crops and destroying infrastructure to gain victory. But peoples homes were not usually destroyed. The object of the war was unification. Brutal treatment of civilians would be unhelpful.In some of the English campaigns in France they burnt farm and town. But not Churches. The reason they did this is to draw the French army out to fight a battle. But that was not a regular policy.After WW1 and WW2 countries needed help to recover. The US had to supply large amounts of food to Germany, Japan and other countries. And help to rebuild cities and economies.Economic problems in Germany after WW1 lead to the rise of the Nazi party and Hitler. After WW2 Germany and Japan were needed as allies to oppose the USSR in the cold war. Their economic capability was needed. This was helped by US investment.Currently the US wants to destroy poppy in Afghanistan. They do not want to destroy local farmers that may be innocent. The poppies are used to make heroin to finance Islamic terrorists.Destroying farms and crops can get complicated and often unproductive.
How did USA and russia go from allies in WWII to enemies in the cold war?
They're weren't that much of allies. They both had a common enemy and wanted to stop them. The reason was their different political ideologies. The USSR was communist, and the USA was democratic. The USA feared communism, and the USSR didn't like democracy. Things like trying to Unify Germany only made matters worse because the USSR thought that the Unification of Germany was a threat to communism. The development of NATO didn't help much either. All it did was try to protect democratic countries in Western Europe, while the Warsaw Pact tried to help spread communism in Eastern Europe. Hope this helps.
The Western European countries used to constantly wage wars against each other, yet none of them seem to hold any grudge in recent times, in contrast to many other countries. Why is it so?
I would venture to say that the NATO creation and U.N. creation have been instrumental in creating some element of harmony and cooperation for self defense and coexistence cooperation, especially given the USSR communism expansion visions for Europe and the world. Another factor was the USA Marshall Plan which was created to rebuild Europe and try to foster Democratic and economic reformation in as many countries as possible. We can’t overlook the fact that Christianity constantly tries to drill into humans that war is sinful, a human scoursge, and we all must try to live in harmony and peace. Afterall, like it or not, Christianity had its greatest membership in the European Continent. It’s teachings has been on balance a force for good in all aspects of society. Christianity also teaches that humans should forgive in order to heal the hurt and animosity.There was the eventual creation of the European Common Market and the European Union, with open borders and a common currency. Germany’s defeat finally cenented the notion that Europeans fighting among themselves was a total waste and tragedy of immense proportions. Nobody wanted to suffer more wars, and the utter humiliation and hardship like Germans went through. In effect, the European internal wars finally ran their course and was replaced by these various solutions or policies, which in large part was lead by the USA politicians, military, businesses, and people.Finally. the after effects of WW2 lead to the de-colonialization movement. Colonialism by the Europeans were a major factor in how and why European nations went to war against each other. So with independence happening for many countries around the world, that ameliorated the causes for war or as you put it, grudges. Not an insignificant factor was the Olympic movement, summer and winter, to promote harmony and friendship among nations. But ominously, Europe is developing new perils with the clash of the Western Civilization and the Islamic Civilization. How that plays out in the next decade or two has many scratching their heads. Will there be more internal European wars, civil or otherwise? We will all need to wait and see.