NationStates Jolt Archive

Since we have a 'Closest US Ally?' (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349569) thread going, I thought I'd get a thread started with the exact opposite purpose - who is our biggest threat?

And please do be serious - also please leave Iraq out of our discussion

I have a coupla contenders:

North Korea - Nuclear Weapons capabilities
Iran - Pursuing WMDs and fostering religious extremism
Syria - religious extremism

EDIT - (just for argument's sake) USA: In Bush's "attempt" to make the world safe for the US we alienate the citizens of practically every country

The US themselves.

who is our biggest threat?

Yourselves.

The US themselves.

Curse you, Gigatron, and your wiley posting-just-slightly-earlier-than-me ways.

China. I consider them the one country with a powerful enough military to defeat the U.S.

Curse you, Gigatron, and your wiley posting-just-slightly-earlier-than-me ways.
It is not my fault that my abilities of premonition cause me to post earlier than you.

If you mean fighting wise.

Iran just rattles sabers. They were losing control and in about 5-10 years another revolution would have happened. But Iraq set that back.

I state that because I noticed one thing in photos of protests against the US. They weren't any young men, teens, or children. Everybody was 40+. Photos in the 70s showed all ages.

I also heard a BBC news cast were the reporter was heading into the hills around Tehran and there he reported about how the teens go there to party, drink and dance.

The hard liners are/were loosing control.

Syria would be a push over. Just another Iraq.

Now North Korea would be an ugly fight. Those guys don't run. As one of my great-uncles once said "If we needed a position and they were on top of it, you had to kill everyone of them to take it."

So NK is my vote since that war never ended......

China. I consider them the one country with a powerful enough military to defeat the U.S.

The reason I dont consider the Chinese a threat is because they appear to be moving towards democracy - however, anything could happen

Republicans are the biggest threat.

Biggest threat to US interests? Instability in Saudi Arabia.

Greenland. We must invade now!

Syria - religious extremism
Religious extremism in Syria?

Syria is actually the most secular Arab country in the Middle East.

Greenland. We must invade now!
Screw greenland ... invade iceland

or maybe canada (canadian bacon ... )

go see mike ruppert's "Truth and Lies of 9/11" that uncovers subjects as the money laundering dependence of the us economy and "Peak Oil" ...

by the end of the 2:23:58 documentary you will look american foreign policy with another set of eyes.

The US themselves.

I concur. We always look to those outside our nation and say 'They are a threat' when in reality we need to look to inside, to our populace and our government.

We have a populace that has shown itself willing to surrender it's freedoms, to throw away everything protected by the Constitution in order to feel 'safe' from some perceived threat from overseas. A populace unwilling to take our leaders to task for their lies and their failures.

We have a government willing to lie to it's own people, anxious to wittle away freedoms slowly with Orwellian-measures like the Patriot Act, Operations TIPs, willing to keep track of it's people with a mandatory and intrusive new Census (http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/SQuest03.pdf), a government that constantly changes the alert status of this nation and even the most vague percieved terrorist threat, and as a result keeping the people scared like bunnies.

The United States (both government and people) forever has been, and likely forever will be, it's own greatest threat.

Religious extremism in Syria?

Syria is actually the most secular Arab country in the Middle East.

If you are correct it may be the lack of it that Superpower07 is worried about.

go see mike ruppert's "Truth and Lies of 9/11" that uncovers subjects as the money laundering dependence of the us economy and "Peak Oil" ...

by the end of the 2:23:58 documentary you will look american foreign policy with another set of eyes. Does it deal with 9/11 being 'blowback' for past US foreign policy?

the US biggest threat are all people who think bombing on children is the wrong way

invade iceland

That'd be fun: the US invades and fights its own units responsible by charter for the defence of Iceland. Kewl.

The quality of our education system.

Geostrategically spoken the rivalry between the US and China in the Asian-pacific region is going to be a dominant conflict in the 21 rst century. Those little Middle Eastern problems are not that significant as the US can invade every country over there it wants to.
China with is rising economy and power is potentially the biggest thread to the US.

the US biggest threat are all people who think bombing on children is the wrong way

Do you mean that bombing children is the right way? It is kind of hard to discern exactly what you do mean by that sentence.

I believe the biggest threat to the USA is it's own foreign policy.

I think that next to a stable alliance between the Arab nations (yes, if they put their differences aside completely and formed a unified front against the US, they'd be hard to deat), the nations who would pose the biggest thread to the US, aside from the US (since you are your own worse enemy), I'd say, North Korea and China... If Saudi Arabia pulls itself together, it would be a substantial threat. Iran could pose a threat as well. Turkey if agitated could be a very big threat.

The quality of our education system.

Is it producing people that are smart enough to intentionally destroy the US or dumb enough to accidentally do the same?

The reason I dont consider the Chinese a threat is because they appear to be moving towards democracy - however, anything could happen


I don't think China is moving toward democracy at all. They are moving toward capitalism, which is definitely not the same as democracy. Take a look at China's moves with Hong Kong for one example. They aren't any more interested in the will of the people than they ever were, they are simply interested in not going financially belly up, so they are moving toward capitalism.

For some reason, too many of us equate "capitalism" with "democracy", and "communism" with "totalitarianism".

One is a financial model, and the other is political.

Watch China, and you'll probably see the formation of a capitalistic authoritarian state.

All of that being said, I agree that we in the US are our own greatest threat. Militarily, no other army on the planet can take away our liberty or freedom - but our own government certainly can, and seems to be doing so every day - because we're too busy looking outside of ourselves for 'evildoers'.

If the EU would ever get their shit together it could rival the US not just militarily but also economicly.

As far as right now though, Iran, Syria, Lybia, North Korea, and the possibility of a radical change in government in Saudi Arabia (in no order) are my main concerns.

Actually I agree with gigatron, just in a different light maybe? Our President Abe Lincoln said it best

"Shall we expect some Transatlantic giant to step across the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Africa and Asia combined could not by force make a track on the Blue Ridge nor take a drink from the Ohio River, not in a trial of a thousand years. If destruction be our lot, then we ourselves must be its author, and its finisher. It cannot come from abroad. As a nation of free men, we must live forever -- or die by suicide."

Abe lincoln said this over 10 years prior to the US civil war.

China. I consider them the one country with a powerful enough military to defeat the U.S.

To defeat us? Nobody does in a non-nuclear conflict. The US spends more on defense then just about every other nation in the world put together. Most Chinese designs are based off if not exact copies of purchased cold war Russian equipment. I think they will grow into more of a polar opposite to us in the next century for certain.

Screw greenland ... invade iceland

or maybe canada (canadian bacon ... )

Iceland ... hrmmm ... how about Finland? Those guys are nothin' but trouble.

Canadian Bacon is a hilarious movie. :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by PRAXE
go see mike ruppert's "Truth and Lies of 9/11" that uncovers subjects as the money laundering dependence of the us economy and "Peak Oil" ...

by the end of the 2:23:58 documentary you will look american foreign policy with another set of eyes.

Does it deal with 9/11 being 'blowback' for past US foreign policy?

It deals with the fact that American foreign policy is planned for some time now... it presents various quotes from Jimmy Carter's National Security advisor. Some of these quotes are montruous

It also explains why is america movin like this and i quote : "The war to control the oil before THE AGE OF OIL ENDS"

it also explain why was afganistan attacked in a move that has like 1% to do with terrorism. maybe you havent noticed but the destruction of the afgan opium crop in early 2001 almost caused the crash of the DOW. afganistan was attacked so that a pipeline between uzbekistan and pakistani coast could be built and also to replant opium troughout afganistan in a estimate 3500 metric tons each year .... almost all of this drug trade is controlled directly by the agency .... but i down want to coniue writing anymore ... see the documentary yourself and nomatter how high you place your expectations about it , you will see them satisfied ...


ps: Dont let a european like me tell you whats wrong with your country ... wake up and go find it out

Lybia Colonel Qaddafi's fashion sense is rather concerning!

ps: Dont let a european like me tell you whats wrong with your country ... wake up and go find it out I'm not American. ;)

how about Finland? Those guys are nothin' but trouble.

Just bear in mind that they have survived more wars against Russia/USSR than you guys have.

I'm not American. ;)

sorry ... but nevertheless the american foreign policy has implications to us all ...

Understand that:

GOD = Gold, Oil and Drugs
Peak Oil is serious buisness - Oil production is peaking ... and demand will rise ... what do you think is the key factor for oil price increase? exponencial demand.


once more i say ... go see that documentary
in the words of mike ruppert:
"Everyone here has seen the wizard of Oz.... we have to get to the man behind the curtain"

The biggest threat to the U.S....is......the U.S.

Understand that:

GOD = Gold, Oil and Drugs

Ah yes, but remember:

UATPSTIC = Using Acronyms To Perform Sophistical Tricks Isn't Clever

Is it producing people that are smart enough to intentionally destroy the US or dumb enough to accidentally do the same?

I do know you're kidding, but I have a serious story about how the educational system produced someone too dumb to know who George Washington was.

So, probably the latter. :rolleyes:

Republicans are the biggest threat.


Or you could say Democrats who emphasis anti-capitalism, Chamberlain Foreign Policy, and downright ignorance.

In short, Democrats and their leftists are the biggest threats to America, which The NY Times a close second.

Ah yes, but remember:

UATPSTIC = Using Acronyms To Perform Sophistical Tricks Isn't Clever

Thats an old saying ...probably older than you and me.

Clever?

Go see the documentary and youll understand how is that america stay's "Top Dog" in the world ...

I do know you're kidding, but I have a serious story about how the educational system produced someone too dumb to know who George Washington was.

Surely not knowing who George Washington was would be a case of ignorance, rather than stupidity?


(I don't know what particular case you are refering to, by the way)

Thats an old saying ...probably older than you and me.

Possibly it is, but it doesn't seem to have permeated to Usenet prior to 2001, which is not a conclusive argument against its age, but is usually surprisingly accurate.

it presents various quotes from Jimmy Carter's National Security advisor. Some of these quotes are montruous Zbigniew Brzezinski?

Zbigniew Brzezinski?
yes ....
some quotes from The grand Cheassboard (1997)

------------------------------------------

According to his resume Brzezinski, holding a 1953 Ph.D. from Harvard, lists the following achievements:

Counselor, Center for Strategic and International Studies

Professor of American Foreign Policy, Johns Hopkins University

National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter (1977-81)

Trustee and founder of the Trilateral Commission

International advisor of several major US/Global corporations

Associate of Henry Kissinger

Under Ronald Reagan – member of NSC-Defense Department Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy

Under Ronald Reagan – member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board

Past member, Board of Directors, The Council on Foreign Relations

1988 – Co-chairman of the Bush National Security Advisory Task Force.

Brzezinski is also a past attendee and presenter at several conferences of the Bilderberger group – a non-partisan

affiliation of the wealthiest and most powerful families and corporations on the planet.

The Grand Chessboard

Brzezinski sets the tone for his strategy by describing Russia and China as the two most important countries – almost but not

quite superpowers - whose interests that might threaten the U.S. in Central Asia. Of the two, Brzezinski considers Russia to

be the more serious threat. Both nations border Central Asia. In a lesser context he describes the Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Iran

and Kazakhstan as essential “lesser” nations that must be managed by the U.S. as buffers or counterweights to Russian and

Chinese moves to control the oil, gas and minerals of the Central Asian Republics (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and

Kyrgyzstan).

He also notes, quite clearly (p. 53) that any nation that might become predominant in Central Asia would directly threaten

the current U.S. control of oil resources in the Persian Gulf. In reading the book it becomes clear why the U.S. had a direct

motive for the looting of some $300 billion in Russian assets during the 1990s, destabilizing Russia’s currency (1998) and

ensuring that a weakened Russia would have to look westward to Europe for economic and political survival, rather than

southward to Central Asia. A dependent Russia would lack the military, economic and political clout to exert influence in the

region and this weakening of Russia would explain why Russian President Vladimir Putin has been such a willing ally of U.S.

efforts to date. (See FTW Vol. IV, No. 1 – March 31, 2001)

An examination of selected quotes from “The Grand Chessboard,” in the context of current events reveals the darker agenda

behind military operations that were planned long before September 11th, 2001.

“…The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a

non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world’s paramount power.

The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the

United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power… (p. xiii)

“… But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also

challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this

book. (p. xiv)

“The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The

public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl

Harbor. (pp 24-5)

“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia… Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia – and America’s

global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is

sustained. (p.30)

“America’s withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival – would produce massive

international instability. It would prompt global anarchy.” (p. 30)

“In that context, how America ‘manages’ Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically

axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive

regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s

subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. About

75 per cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its

enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the

world’s known energy resources.” (p.31)

It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power,

especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy.

But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to

the public’s sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice

(casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is

inimical to imperial mobilization.” (p.35)

“Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to

cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of

their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;… second, to formulate specific

U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above…” (p. 40)

“…To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of

imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant

and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.” (p.40)

“Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of

Eurasia, thereby threatening America’s status as a global power.” (p.55)

“Uzbekistan, nationally the most vital and the most populous of the central Asian states, represents the major obstacle to

any renewed Russian control over the region. Its independence is critical to the survival of the other Central Asian states,

and it is the least vulnerable to Russian pressures.” (p. 121)

Referring to an area he calls the “Eurasian Balkans” and a 1997 map in which he has circled the exact location of the current

conflict – describing it as the central region of pending conflict for world dominance - Brzezinski writes: “Moreover, they

[the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of

their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing

political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an

enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including

gold.” (p.124) [Emphasis added]

“The world’s energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S.

Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most

significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia’s economic development is already

generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and

the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or

the North Sea.” (p.125)

“Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia.” (p.130)

“Once pipelines to the area have been developed, Turkmenistan’s truly vast natural gas reserves augur a prosperous future for

the country’s people. (p.132)

“In fact, an Islamic revival – already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia – is likely to

become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under

Russian – and hence infidel – control.” (p. 133).

“For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan – and to deny to

Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan – and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction

linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea.” (p.139)

“Turkmenistan… has been actively exploring the construction of a new pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian

Sea…” (p.145)

“It follows that America’s primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space

and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it.” (p148)

“China’s growing economic presence in the region and its political stake in the area’s independence are also congruent with

America’s interests.” (p.149)

“America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe’s central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution

of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America’s global primacy and to America’s historical

legacy.” (p.194)

“Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the

world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today’s Eurasia

but of the world more generally.” (p.194)

“With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole

and be guided by a Geostrategic design.” (p.197)

“That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could

eventually seek to challenge America’s primacy…” (p. 198)

“The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United

States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role.” (p. 198)

“In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the

hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also

likely to be the very last.” (p.209)

“Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on

foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” (p. 211)

[Emphasis added]


ps sorry for the size of the post

The sheer profundity of all of your observations is staggering. I never realized that so many people, with so many varying opinions, could all be right.

The greatest threat to the U.S. is all the people who think they know the greatest threat to the U.S.
_________________________________________________________________


"The more I learn, the more I realize I know nothing."

... how about Finland? Those guys are nothin' but trouble.

Just bear in mind that they have survived more wars against Russia/USSR than you guys have..

Ehh, We don't mind... bring it on! Our WMD program is ready. War is cleansing. (I don't actually know where Keruvalia is from... oops!)

Ehh, We don't mind... bring it on! Our WMD program is ready. War is cleansing. (I don't actually know where Keruvalia is from... oops!)

lol

I was actually joking. I just always hoped that some country who never did anything to anybody would just leap up and go insane. Like Finland or Sweden or some such like that. It would be hilarious!

I'd gladly surrender to Finnish troups if they came a'knockin' ...

Well, true. We are mellow if not messed with.

But keep on joking and you'll be served! ;)

The biggest threat to the U.S. (and that goes for any other nation) is the apathy of the general populace. When the moderate majority is silent, only the extremists win.

The UN, perhaps? Going against our interests, the imbalance of power, the scandels, the unsuccessful attempts to stop our invasion.

They're more like a pesky fly rather than a threat though.

I think that is rather unfair towards the UN. It's a forum for the nations to bring their grievances forth and try to overcome problems peacefully. If the UN can't deal with particular problems (add yours), then the diplomacy has lost, not the UN.

I thought the idea behind the UN was that it doesn't serve anybody's interest... but rather the common good. Hard to do, I agree. Hardly a reason enough to call the whole body useless though.

Maybe the veto system is rotten? That for sure is imbalance of power. In big organisations there tends to be scandals, even corruption and sure, failures.

Somehow I still believe the UN, thru it's various organisations has managed to do more good than harm.

China.The questin is would China launch an Nuke attack without reason?
Does today's China have a reason to Attack the US???

" The questin is would China launch an Nuke attack without reason?
Does today's China have a reason to Attack the US???"

Because we thought of freedom before them? No I dont think anyone in thier right mind wants to nuke anyone (automatically excludes dillusional religous fanatics and over zealous control freaks) Take out the extremists on the right and the left and this truly would be a perfect non-bloody world.

Iran and North Korea are big threats today, but should they make a move, the US will squash them like a bug. Long-term, however, our main threats are the same as fifty years ago.
Russia is one. The current president, Putin, has good enough relations with the US. That may not be so, later on. Right now, however, Russia is in a position to dominate. Russia didn't sign Kyoto, for example, because they want the ice in Siberia to melt. Why? It's extremely rich in resources. The rising oil costs also works in their favor. Most importantly, however, they've managed to make most, if not all, of the former Soviet republics highly dependent on Russsia for security, their economy, even something as basic as electricity. If they update their industrial base, Russia will be a full blown power. And with Putin acting autocratic, and nationalism sweeping the nation, the chance of some Stalinesque wacko getting into power is high.
China is another. Their economy is growing, and their army is huge. Through that in with the Taiwan situation, and that makes them a very dangerous threat.

...I dont think anyone in thier right mind wants to nuke anyone.I fully agree...Having said that....there is some scenarios that could spin out of control...

#1- Kashmere...enuff said...
#2- Some Pentagon Wackos decide to "surgically" take out the NK Nuke plants...
#3- Israel tries number 2 on Iran.
#4- Any "sum of all fears" variety...

they say WW3 is not going to happen....I say maybe not...hopefully not.

... their army is huge. Through that in with the Taiwan situation, and that makes them a very dangerous threat.
I dont see the Taiwan conflict as a High percentage Threat...
Why?

Let me put it this way...

scenario #1
september 2005...China uses a disgraceful boat incident to Invade and Take over Taiwan...

What would the US do?

I dont see the Taiwan conflict as a High percentage Threat...
Why?

Let me put it this way...

scenario #1
september 2005...China uses a disgraceful boat incident to Invade and Take over Taiwan...

What would the US do?
Fullfill its defense obligation. We have a defense pact with Taiwan, and if we broke it by abandoning Taiwan, we'd loose much less credibility in the world.

I dont see the Taiwan conflict as a High percentage Threat...
Why?

Let me put it this way...

scenario #1
september 2005...China uses a disgraceful boat incident to Invade and Take over Taiwan...

What would the US do?
Fullfill its defense obligation. We have a defense pact with Taiwan, and if we broke it by abandoning Taiwan, we'd loose much less credibility in the world.
I was thinking, however, if by using this rationale, Taiwan could be encouraged to restart its nuclear program. After all, as Tapei could reason, Washington may not be willing to risk war with China, so Taiwan needs to fend for themselves. Same type of logic France and the UK used to develope their nukes.

Fullfill its defense obligation. We have a defense pact with Taiwan, and if we broke it by abandoning Taiwan, we'd loose much less credibility in the world.Please spell it out...Literally...What do we do?...

We Launch the Nukes?

Do you mean that bombing children is the right way? It is kind of hard to discern exactly what you do mean by that sentence.

sry i see i wrote it very stupid i mean its wrong to bomb children in iraq or somewhere else

Obvious, but I have to post it anyway - The Bush Administration.

Biggest threat to the USA by a long, long way...

sry i see i wrote it very stupid i mean its wrong to bomb children in iraq or somewhere else

or general civilists

Please spell it out...Literally...What do we do?...

We Launch the Nukes?
That'd be the course of action I'd take. Taiwan is the last bastion of democracy in China. It needs to be defended at all costs, and if needed, that means nuking the country. It'd most likely mean the Chinese nuking the US back, but that's part of the deterrance: mutually assured destruction. That's why a missile shield, I think, will be such a help. It gives democracies some wiggle room to act.

... It'd most likely mean the Chinese nuking the US back, but that's part of the deterrance.
First "most likely" is not the word you are looking for..

First "most likely" is not the word you are looking for..
Not necessarily, if one of the US's first targets are their launch silos. But there may be one or two we don't know about.

Not necessarily, if one of the US's first targets are their launch silos. But there may be one or two we don't know about.Then why to even talk about Mutual-Assured-Destruction... :confused:

First to Draw wins all...Quick lets Nuke Russia, France , Israel and China ...Before they figure that out....

Then why to even talk about Mutual-Assured-Destruction... :confused:

First to Draw wins all...Quick lest Nuke Russia, France , Israel and China ...Before they figure that out....
Well, because it works. I admit that a missile shield may tip the world balance of power, but at least it means the US wouldn't be compelled to use nukes, kicking up enough radiation to cause a global nuclear winter.

Well, because it works. so If you can destroy all (but a couple of) the Enemie's nukes before they even Launch...WHAT (The FUCK) Mutual Assured Destruction are you talking about...

so If you can destroy all(dut 3) the Enemie's nukes before they even Launch...WHAT (The FUCK) Mutual Assured Destruction are you talking about...
There are other ways to deliver nukes. Not only that, but the possibility exists that the US can't bomb the launch sites in time to stop an attack. The very existence of nukes (and no real defense against them) is enough reason to consider MAD very likely.
And btw, Russia has one known nuclear submarine. They can scooch that toward the US, and take out our major cities. After all, one of those submarines has far more firepower than even most nations with nukes.

I give up... :headbang:

Pinko, commie liberals and the EU.

USA, China, Europe

in that order.

even if i actually regard China more as an Economic threat and Europe as a Political Threat (give to th UE some politica consistance, then the conflicts with the USA or the China will come out sooner or later)

so If you can destroy all (but a couple of) the Enemie's nukes before they even Launch...WHAT (The FUCK) Mutual Assured Destruction are you talking about...

How are you planning to (theoretically) destory those on submarines?

First to Draw wins all...Quick lets Nuke Russia, France , Israel and China ...Before they figure that out....

Hey, no fair, we in the UK (and probably those in Pakistan and India) want a piece of the action too.

How are you planning to (theoretically) destory those on submarines?Im not Planning to destroy submarines...
My point was...If China uses some incident to invade Taiwan...I dont see us Launching nukes to China...

so If you can destroy all (but a couple of) the Enemie's nukes before they even Launch...WHAT (The FUCK) Mutual Assured Destruction are you talking about...
How are you planning to (theoretically) destory those on submarines?

and how are you planning to launch some nukes to china without letting them figure it out? i think they'll figure out what's happening 10 mins before the missile hits the target.

Hey, no fair, we in the UK (and probably those in Pakistan and India) want a piece of the action too.If...If...if it was possible to take out all the silos...(and i dont think we can take more than a few).... Pakistan and India do not have the means to deliber them all the way...and they only have a few...

UK? yeah we can rain nukes unto your island without any risk whatsoever... :D

George Dubbya will use his divine powers to blind the enemy sensors. ;)

and how are you planning to launch some nukes to china without letting them figure it out? i think they'll figure out what's happening 10 mins before the missile hits the target.Damnit guys...I know that...Its the other guy(what his name) who says "we can take all but two of the Chinese silos"

Read the 6 posts...is not that long...

Damnit guys...I know that...Its the other guy(what his name) who says "we can take all but two of the Chinese silos"

Read the 6 posts...is not that long...

i noticed that, but was too lazy to edit the post :P

Cheers
EDIT: wait, we just quoted a question of yours, and added 2 more questions, so we weren't asking that to you, but to him :)

Please spell it out...Literally...What do we do?...

We Launch the Nukes?

It would be a Very Bad Day(c) for the PLO(N), that's for sure :D

Hell the Taiwanese military could hold out against the first couple of waves by themselves until the US can mass the Pacific Fleet in the area. The only reason we would launch nukes is if the Chinese launch nukes, and even though they might take out some of the West Coast they don't have the reach to hit any of the rest of the US as American bombs oblierate their population. No MAD means they're not going to be stupid enough to try it anyway.

George Dubbya will use his divine powers to blind the enemy sensors. ;)
LOOK AT ME WORLD! I'M NEKKID!

LOOK AT ME WORLD! I'M NEKKID!mind turning around...so I can tell if you are a girl... :D

Getting so obese, America sinks to the centre of the Earth.
Or: The weight distribution affects the Earths orbit and we spin out of control into the Sun.

Surely not knowing who George Washington was would be a case of ignorance, rather than stupidity?

A friend of mine is an English professor at a university. He once made reference to the Revolutionary War during a lecture, and one student had absolutely no idea what he was talking about. He asked a few questions of her, and determined that:

* She did not know there WAS a Revolutionary War.
* She had never heard of George Washington.
* She was unaware that the United States began as a series of English Colonies.
* She did not know that this was the ultimate reason for the celebration of the 4th of July.
* She was born in the United states and has lived here her entire life.
* She attended public schools, which ALL teach U.S. History as a component.

So we have the case of a young woman who had been taught about the Revolutionary War at the grade school, junior high school, AND high school levels -- as is customary -- and STILL retained no knowledge WHATSOEVER of the origins of this nation.

Is it still ignorance if you HAVE been exposed to the information on at least THREE separate occasions and STILL don't have any retention?

And btw, Russia has one known nuclear submarine. They can scooch that toward the US, and take out our major cities. After all, one of those submarines has far more firepower than even most nations with nukes. Russia operates 26 strategic nuclear submarines carrying 2,272 nuclear warheads on 440 ballistic missiles.

I believe he meant china.

Biggest threat to US is George Bush

North Korea - Nuclear Weapons capabilities
Iran - Pursuing WMDs and fostering religious extremism
Syria - religious extremism


Do you actually see those nations as a threat, military? I think that the US, alone, would achieve a rather fast victory against all these three nations at the same time if it was needed.

The real threat would be tha they are currently, imo, making more enemies then friends in the world. That would be equal to terrorism against the US(poor mans war), or quite a few strong(military) nations teams up against an unsupported USA.

Since we have a 'Closest US Ally?' (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349569) thread going, I thought I'd get a thread started with the exact opposite purpose - who is our biggest threat?

And please do be serious - also please leave Iraq out of our discussion

I have a coupla contenders:

North Korea - Nuclear Weapons capabilities
Iran - Pursuing WMDs and fostering religious extremism
Syria - religious extremism

EDIT - (just for argument's sake) USA: In Bush's "attempt" to make the world safe for the US we alienate the citizens of practically every country

Canada definately. AVENGE NOVEMBER 3RD!

Ok seriously, prolly North Korea. Then Iran and the rest.

Military as in occupation speaking there are others with WMD more determined facing hardship to defend home, as in being invaded to occupation, no way. Fair chance of cities being hit by not US nukes.

Dangerous is the economical boombustblast with natural changes and the federal mob giving so much friction. In line with the global mess.

Supposedly Arab terrorists seem to make it easy for the WASP ruling elite to control locals and non US humans in order to increase and secure their pension plan and child donation later on.

Now you have the diehard well earning staff of propaganda listening home defenders and underpaid regular army.
The website tells you all about that Bush co annual 40 plus Billion success story.

We pay for our own doom.