Cite reasons why 'terrorism' has or has not escalated into a new 'cold war' among nations?

Answer 1

'Terrorism', which is a hugely inexact and almost useless term- as in you can't get to grips with any issue without narrowing the definition to something more precise and rigorous- is generally not state based. The Cold War was 'cold' mainly because the threat of nuclear annihilation ensured the 'fights' were kept within very strict limits, and certain 'rules' applied about the means that would be used.

Terrorism's dubious and changing legal status means nations can be your 'friends' on one hand while financing and arming those who will attack you on the other. Terrorists only have the capacity to do very limited damage- the spectacular nature of 9/11 notwithstanding, because this sort of thing could only be done once before security was tightened and terrorist operations became very difficult- so nations always have an ambivalent attitude from both directions. For example, America will be 'friends' and help regimes that hurt the US, while nations will trade with the West while harbouring those who will attack.

A 'Cold War' situation requires a clear and unambiguous situation... the terrorist situation more resembles that before WW2 when nations could be in alliance of 'helping' each other while preparing to fight each other.

Of course, if terrorists got nukes all this would be different, but there seems to be very little willingness to put aside commercial convenience to make this happen. Also, governments no longer control foreign policy- multinationals do- so they can't take a clear and consistent position.

Answer 2

Well, it's not so cold, number one. It has more in line with the Vietnam Conflict than anything else.

Terrorism is just the new monicker for 'international misbehavior.' And sadly, the term itself has become the household word for "Middle-Eastern." The concept of terrorism as viewed by certain nations (America specifically) has stirred the pot in the Middle-East. Many over there trust us less than we trust them. Rightfully so, as most Americans have not taken the time to learn the ways of other countries and assume that American life is the de facto standard for global civlization.

This... not terrorism itself... has been the reason for tensions and escalation of this new form of attack and retaliation. However, this has been going on for years and years in the middle east. Only now, when reporters have their convoys blown up, do we see it here in the States. This, in turn, fuels the fire, and drives more suicide bombers and arsonists to destroy more Coalition assets.

So this isn't a cold war by any means, it's a true conflict, and a true war... only the tactics applied by the opposing side(s) are not orthodox in the manner that we're used to. It's a war. And it will only get worse.

Answer 3

It may be that "terrorism" is not a nation. Certain nations support terrorism covertly, as opposed to openly confronting other nations for political reasons, which did happen during the Cold War.
It may also be that "terrorism" today feeds on social and economic inequality - and gains little, or has little to offer, in the politcal sphere. This is just my humble opinion, I am not an expert in either the field of Terrorism or the events of the Cold War.

Answer 4

Homework essay?? Because we no longer trust most of the middle east. Pax - C