NationStates Jolt Archive

Considering that the U.S. is one of the most hated nations, considering the U.S. is one of the most richest nations, considering the U.S. is one of the most powerful nations, do you think other nations would respond to our aid as quickly or at all?

For one, the death toll would be much larger. Considering a 9.0 earthquake in the Pacific Coast a little East of Hawaii. Hawaii would be hit terribly. British Columbia would be hit hard. Baja California would be hit hard.

Even worse, San Fransisco, San Diego, Long Beach, Orange County, and perhaps even L.A. Imagine the death toll! It would make the events in Asia look like child's play. Imagine all the plundering and the immediate increase in crime. Imagine the economic problems.

Would we still receive $2 billion in aid? Or a check for $5.50 and a "Good luck"?

Considering that the U.S. is one of the most hated nations, considering the U.S. is one of the most richest nations, considering the U.S. is one of the most powerful nations, do you think other nations would respond to our aid as quickly or at all?

For one, the death toll would be much larger. Considering a 9.0 earthquake in the Pacific Coast a little East of Hawaii. Hawaii would be hit terribly. British Columbia would be hit hard. Baja California would be hit hard.

Even worse, San Fransisco, San Diego, Long Beach, Orange County, and perhaps even L.A. Imagine the death toll! It would make the events in Asia look like child's play. Imagine all the plundering and the immediate increase in crime. Imagine the economic problems.

Would we still receive $2 billion in aid? Or a check for $5.50 and a "Good luck"?

We would get relief, even though we arent, err, liked. (Some nations feel the need to suck up to us, this would be a good way for them to earn their "browny points") Besides, we have enough money to help ourselves. And a strong National Guard, warning system, and law enforcement, that their wouldnt be too much looting, and not nearly as many deaths. Plus enough of an army to help people and rescue people.

our friends would come to our aid

it would be different from what is happening in asia because those countries are poor and we are not.

the international red cross would help

europe, canada, japan, whoever, would send people and equipment to help. if we needed certain kinds of supplies that we couldnt supply ourselves they would provide them. it would depend on our NEED and their ability to fulfill that need

but they would be there.

We would get relief, even though we arent, err, liked. (Some nations feel the need to suck up to us, this would be a good way for them to earn their "browny points") Besides, we have enough money to help ourselves. And a strong National Guard, warning system, and law enforcement, that their wouldnt be too much looting, and not nearly as many deaths.
Well given that the entire Coastal population has 20 minutes to evacuate from a tsunami, I think there's a good chance that every freeway would be backed up for miles for days. And people just can't walk that far in 20 minutes carrying their stuff.

Looting may be minimal though, perhaps.

I don't know: I remember quite a bit of sympathy and help from other nations after Sept. 2001.

Even worse, San Fransisco, San Diego, Long Beach, Orange County, and perhaps even L.A.

Why would that be worse than what would happen to Hawaii, BC, and Baja California?

Well, when 'just' 3000 died the world offered a great deal of support and good will, which we piddled away.

California was dealt two whoppers in the last fifteen years or so, but we more or less saw it coming and are prepared for it. Likely it will be centered along something like the Hayward fault. We are a little more prepared for that kind of occourance and aren't likely to dissolve into anarchy as we haven't so far in our big earthquakes.

We aren't terribly prepared for tusnamis-at least not that I know of...death toll would depend on season. Despite what many think, those beaches aren't riddled year-round, especially up here in NorCal. So very cold. I don't think the death toll would be as high.

However, this was not the substance of the question, completely missing the point of hypothetical. Sadly I just realised that. Sometimes you just get going before checking the map....

Sooo....yes, I think that we would recieve support and goodwill again. Certainly there will be those who will say something along the lines of "Couldn't have happened to a better group," but the majority I believe would be sympathatic. Besides, it's not just the US, it's California...we'd probably get more flack from other states than the world. I mean, it's California......okay-that's just native-born bias, but it's not entirely unfounded.

The disaster would probably not be as catastrophic here as it was there. We do not have as large of a population denisty so not as many people would die. It still would be a horrible event and I imagine the foreign communitee would lend a hand.

the U.S. is one of the most hated nations
Utter, unadulterated, unqualified bullshit. This is nothing more than a myth perpetrated by the far left in an attempt to discredit President Bush and through him, the entire Country. I don't for a moment believe it. :)

Well, France would laugh at us. The UN would say, "oh really wow. That's some bad luck." All the terrorists would send us greeting cards saying we suck and mother nature did their work. Face It. We are THE most hated country in histroy.

Lots of people would help us, CHINA would probobly try to help us.
Considering how the world economy would go 'kaput' if the US suddenly ceased to exist, or was rendered inoperable for some time.

EDIT:
As to the tsunami bit...
I lived in Oregon (Cannon Beach, to be specific) when the big Seattle earthquake hit. We sat under our desks for fifteen minutes. Basicaly, if there had been a real tsunami (IE: One larger than the three foot pissant we actually got :P) we would have died, that simple.

the pacific also has a warning system set up. people would be evacuated before the waves make their way to highly populated areas. i'm sure if bc is hit hard, then we'd be a bit busy taking care of our own population... but i'm certain that other countries would help all the countries hit by such devastation.

Why would that be worse than what would happen to Hawaii, BC, and Baja California?
well, for bc and baja california, i'm going to guess that it's because they're not part of the u.s.

as for hawaii, i'm sure it's because they're not as important.


it's really wonderfully considerate of the original poster to consider the lives of american citizens to be so much more important than the lives of citizens of other countries.

it's attitudes like that that irk people...

Lots of people would help us, CHINA would probobly try to help us.
Considering how the world economy would go 'kaput' if the US suddenly ceased to exist, or was rendered inoperable for some time.

If 9.0 earthquake in central Pacific then China would have it's own problems.

If 9.0 earthquake in central Pacific then China would have it's own problems.
As would Japan, Australia, etc. I rather suspect we would be on our own, since I honestly don't believe Europe ( with the possible exception of our loyal friends, Great Britian ) would have either the capablility or the will to help us.

While a tsumani, even one the size of the most recent one is massive, the shape of our coastlines is such that it would not be near as devestating. I think the European countries would send some aid, but Canada would be left hanging... most of Canada's help would come from within and the U.S.

As would Japan, Australia, etc. I rather suspect we would be on our own, since I honestly don't believe Europe ( with the possible exception of our loyal friends, Great Britian ) would have either the capablility or the will to help us.
wouldn't the waves dissipate before reaching australia?

and at any rate, by that time, no lives would be lost down under, they would have hours and hours to evacuate people before a wave hits. all that would be lost would be stuff.

I think the European countries would send some aid, but Canada would be left hanging... most of Canada's help would come from within and the U.S.
?

why the hell would you get that idea? canada is having much better relations with europe than the u.s. at the moment.

Well I live in a US State that just went through three hurricanes. You haven't heard on the evening news but we still have a lot of hurricane homeless. It's not so much a total lack of Federal Help, (I didn't apply for a dime myself) but really slow insurance companies.

Oh yeah, and no international help, but we could use some more British tourists. Come back to America guys, everything is really cheap amnd Disney World is fully operational. :D

Sending troops to a war where there is little gain is quite different from sending aid to disaster relief victims I should think. Try not to judge other nations on the sole basis of whether they were willing to spend lives and money on a war they didn't want a part in.

Besides, as was correctly pointed out, a great deal of goodwill and aid was sent for an isolated incident of terrorism that claimed far more victims than previous actions. It should be no different for disaster relief. Additionally, the proposed tsunami would affect more than just the western coast and would probably devastate japan, north Australia, New Zealand and provide serious problems to China as well.

wouldn't the waves dissipate before reaching australia?

and at any rate, by that time, no lives would be lost down under, they would have hours and hours to evacuate people before a wave hits. all that would be lost would be stuff.
The waves wouldn't dissipate because there's nothing between Australia and the central Pacific except many miles of water. You're probably correct about low loss of life there ( at least I hope you are ), but "stuff" is what would be needed by all the countries damaged, yes?

I'd strap on my gear and turn my superpowers to destroying the superwave assault obviously caused by someone whos name starts with K. He is my nemisis! I then win!

The waves wouldn't dissipate because there's nothing between Australia and the central Pacific except many miles of water. You're probably correct about low loss of life there ( at least I hope you are ), but "stuff" is what would be needed by all the countries damaged, yes?
they might have enough time to get food and water supplies out. then they would just need to rebuilid/fix buildings. i think the buildings in australia are a little more sturdy than the ones in some of the areas affected by the most recent tsunami. i'm not sure how well they'd do against a wall of water, but you never know.

and perhaps the great barrier reef might offer some protection for australia, if the waves come in the right direction...

well, for bc and baja california, i'm going to guess that it's because they're not part of the u.s.

as for hawaii, i'm sure it's because they're not as important.


it's really wonderfully considerate of the original poster to consider the lives of american citizens to be so much more important than the lives of citizens of other countries.

it's attitudes like that that irk people...

Hmmmm....

Actually, I believe that narrow-minded hatred on your part Dakini and no thoughtful analysis to the original post irks more people. Or should, at any rate.

Orange County, California has 10.2 X the (human, not necessarily "American") population of Baja Cali, Hawaii, and British Columbia combined. On that standard alone I believe that the original post had a valid point to make - that human tragedy can (though not apparently in your case) transcend narrow national boudaries. Regardless of what "Nation State" was affected.

Grow up, ma'am.

Respectfully,

"Ghost of FDR"

you mean something like a 50 foot tsunami hitting the east coast? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/956280.stm) I would add that recent research (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3963563.stm) discounts the threat as overblown but as also rightly pointed out there is little point in outlining a 'least dangerous scenario'

As to foreign aid I have no doubt you would receive it, I know I would, despite my opinion of your current administration.

Hmmmm....

Actually, I believe that narrow-minded hatred on your part Dakini and no thoughtful analysis to the original post irks more people. Or should, at any rate.

oh please, don't people know a joke anymore. fuck.

Orange County, California has 10.2 X the (human, not necessarily "American") population of Baja Cali, Hawaii, and British Columbia combined. On that standard alone I believe that the original post had a valid point to make - that human tragedy can (though not apparently in your case) transcend narrow national boudaries. Regardless of what "Nation State" was affected.

however, if you're talking about an earthquake happening near hawaii, that is much more likely to be affected in terms of great loss of life than california or the west coast of the u.s., as hawaii is much closer to the epicentre, thus the inhabitants of the islands would have much less time to escape the waves. whereas the inhabitants of california would have more than enough time to get the hell out of the way. as would the inhabitants of british columbia, however, i don't see how the destruction of buildings in california is worse than the destruction of buildings in british columbia... or any worse than the loss of life that would occur in hawaii in such a situation.

and hell, if you want to worry about great loss of life, look at china and japan as well. their population density is much higher than in the states and in china much of the population lives on the coast. given the amount of people in such a small area and panic, chances are better that people won't be able to get out as easy.

Grow up, ma'am.
grow a sarcasm detector.

and also, i think you're undersetimating the population of british columbia a little...

http://www.canadainfolink.ca/bcmap.htm

B.C.'s population was 4.168 million people, as of March 2004.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06059.html

Orange County Population, 2003 estimate 2,957,766

there are nearly twice as many people in british columbia. and the most populated cities, victoria and vancouver are right next to each other and on the coast.

I guess I missed your subtle attempts at sarcasm embedded within that very funny post yours, ma'am, apologies. Your sarcasm is virtually... Stealth, I would say.

My sarcasm detector is very well grown already and hung thank you, if you should ever feel the need to polish it, feel free.

If you've ever been to Hawaii (I'm born there, and looking at Diamond Head right now), you'd know that the good folk of my fair island have but 4 or 5 feet inland to run to reach - *MUCH* higher ground. I'm not personally familiar with Japan, but they have muchamos high ground to retreat to as well, if the atlases aren't lying. Florida & Holland are truly screwed in the event, and places like southern India, and coastal Ceylon/Sri Lanka as well.

I think the original post had a decent point to make, your sarcasm didn't come off as such. It sounded like exactly what you were railing (apparently?) against - a cheap shot at a big target.

Sincerely,

"Ghost of FDR"

If the tsunami/earthquake is what I think it was, sign of end times, then most likely we will suffer from similar disasters and so will many other countries.
Also there are many other signs that are unfolding
But I am not sure on the death toll

I guess I missed your subtle attempts at sarcasm embedded within that very funny post yours, ma'am, apologies. Your sarcasm is virtually... Stealth, I would say.

My sarcasm detector is very well grown already and hung thank you, if you should ever feel the need to polish it, feel free.

tone of voice is lacking on the forums, if you haven't noticed. i also keep forgetting how to make the eye rolly guy...

If you've ever been to Hawaii (I'm born there, and looking at Diamond Head right now), you'd know that the good folk of my fair island have but 4 or 5 feet inland to run to reach - *MUCH* higher ground. I'm not personally familiar with Japan, but they have muchamos high ground to retreat to as well, if the atlases aren't lying. Florida & Holland are truly screwed in the event, and places like southern India, and coastal Ceylon/Sri Lanka as well.

so living in hawaii means that you can scale 5 stories (the height that tsunami waves can reach) in say 10 mins? i would assume less if it's directly off the coast...

it's also not solely a matter of getting to high ground as it is getting to ground that's away from the coast. no matter how big a wave, it has to collapse at some point when it hits land. this can be a 30 min walk from the coast. i'm sure most of orange county's population is already a 30 min walk from the coast. unless every single person lives directly on the beach. and they would have hours of warning to evacuate.

not to mention your gross underestimation of the population of the third most populous province in canada... we don't all live in igloos and drive dog sleds you know. there are more than two people per kilometer in many areas of the country. thank you for sitting there and insulting me for what you perceived as hate on my part and responding to it with ignorance on your part... it was appreciated...

I think the original post had a decent point to make, your sarcasm didn't come off as such. It sounded like exactly what you were railing (apparently?) against - a cheap shot at a big target.

nice to see you took the high road and insulted me after making assumptions about my intent.

The US has already been hit by tsunami as large as the one in the Indian Ocean, which was relatively small, as tsunami go. The death toll there is largely a part of population density, poor sanitation, third world civic planning and inadequate response programs relative to the size of the event. Most places hit by this wave have open sewers which spread disease and harbor vector insects when flooded, had little or no preventative measures against extreme weather, and the capacity to hold half a dozen people at most before burial. The residences and commercial areas were constructed of materials incapable of surviving extreme weather such as tropical storms, selected for their plentiful availibility and low cost. A disaster that strikes a first world country would have to surpass the scope of this one in scope by many many times to create the death toll the world has seen in the last week.

Please dont put your nations superiority or inferiority as a barrier to help from other nations. On 9/11 the rest of the world was glued to the TV praying for the survivors and relatives of those affected.
The reason that US is hated is because the people think that they are being hated. Its because of the indifference shown to others. They dont consider themselves as one among the world. There is too much superiority complex. When a calamity strikes, no one thinks about which nation is affected. They look at the people and try their best to help them.
Understand this first before making rude comments about others. There was a flamebait post in this forum showing utter lack of concern towards the asian tsunami victims. When such attitude is reflected from certain (very few) americans, how do you expect the world to not show hostility towards US.

well, for bc and baja california, i'm going to guess that it's because they're not part of the u.s.

as for hawaii, i'm sure it's because they're not as important.


it's really wonderfully considerate of the original poster to consider the lives of american citizens to be so much more important than the lives of citizens of other countries.

it's attitudes like that that irk people...
I didn't mean like that. I meant that British Columbia and B.C. would maintain a smaller amount of casualties, given the geographical fact that a tsunami from Hawaii would hit most of the U.S. at the worst, and B.C. and B.C. (heh, funny) least. Kinda like how Pakistan didn't get a tsunami hit because of India being there for it.

And I mean dude...have you seen the freaking amount of people all over Californian beaches? I mean...we own Hawaii by population three times over probably.

and also, i think you're undersetimating the population of british columbia a little...

http://www.canadainfolink.ca/bcmap.htm

B.C.'s population was 4.168 million people, as of March 2004.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06059.html

Orange County Population, 2003 estimate 2,957,766

there are nearly twice as many people in british columbia. and the most populated cities, victoria and vancouver are right next to each other and on the coast.
read what I said about the geographical buffer.

Considering that the U.S. is one of the most hated nations, considering the U.S. is one of the most richest nations, considering the U.S. is one of the most powerful nations, do you think other nations would respond to our aid as quickly or at all?

For one, the death toll would be much larger. Considering a 9.0 earthquake in the Pacific Coast a little East of Hawaii. Hawaii would be hit terribly. British Columbia would be hit hard. Baja California would be hit hard.

Even worse, San Fransisco, San Diego, Long Beach, Orange County, and perhaps even L.A. Imagine the death toll! It would make the events in Asia look like child's play. Imagine all the plundering and the immediate increase in crime. Imagine the economic problems.

Would we still receive $2 billion in aid? Or a check for $5.50 and a "Good luck"?
As long as America continues it's anti-sex anti-nudity puritanical crap, it deserves the latter. :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

You kiddin' me? It's Hawaii and California! Surfers would congregate!

Utter, unadulterated, unqualified bullshit. This is nothing more than a myth perpetrated by the far left in an attempt to discredit President Bush and through him, the entire Country. I don't for a moment believe it. :)

Webster definition
Main Entry: de·ni·al
...a psychological defense mechanism in which confrontation with a personal problem or with reality is avoided by denying the existence of the problem or reality

And I mean dude...have you seen the freaking amount of people all over Californian beaches? I mean...we own Hawaii by population three times over probably.
and they would have hours and hours to evacuate the beaches. and move inland 30 mins and voila. safety.

they were saying that if there was a warning system in the indian ocean much of the loss of life could have been prevented. i think sri lanka had an hour and a half from earthquake to tsunami... considering a 30 min walk inland would have saved them... that's more than enough time.

now think of how close sri lanka and indonesia are and think of how close california and hawaii are.... there's plenty of time..

furthremore, see further discussion on this same post...

read what I said about the geographical buffer.
read what the poster i quoted said.

they said that the population of orange county in california was 10 times the size of the population of british columbia, hawaii and baja california combined. i pointed out that british columbia is more populated than orange county, contrary to what the poster said.

and they would have hours and hours to evacuate the beaches. and move inland 30 mins and voila. safety.

they were saying that if there was a warning system in the indian ocean much of the loss of life could have been prevented. i think sri lanka had an hour and a half from earthquake to tsunami... considering a 30 min walk inland would have saved them... that's more than enough time.
Totally untrue. Your counting on the fact that everyone will pack up within 20 minutes and be out of there in 5 minutes and are immediatly safe.

You haven't taken into account the sheer amount of crime that would pop up suddenly after an evacuation in cities such as L.A.

You haven't taken into account the number of accidents that will no doubt occur and flood the freeway.

You haven't taken into account the amount of people that have personal and special needs.

You haven't taken into account the hospitals and the prisons.

And what makes you think we have hours and hours after an earthquake to evacuate from a tsunami? The people in Indonesia had 20 minutes. I predict a 9.0 off of Hawaii would take 50 minutes for a tsunami to reach Californian shores at most.

Oh I realize what your doing. Your taking the focus away from the question and paying attention to the stupid little details.

Jesus, it's just a hypothetical question anyway. Not a speculation, a question.

I'm through discussing the physics and the social problems of an evacuation.

You haven't taken into account the sheer amount of crime that would pop up suddenly after an evacuation in cities such as L.A.

if i'm not mistaken, l.a. is not right on the ocean. it is at least 30 mins (walking) inland, is it not?

You haven't taken into account the number of accidents that will no doubt occur and flood the freeway.

You haven't taken into account the amount of people that have personal and special needs.

You haven't taken into account the hospitals and the prisons.

And what makes you think we have hours and hours after an earthquake to evacuate from a tsunami? The people in Indonesia had 20 minutes. I predict a 9.0 off of Hawaii would take 50 minutes for a tsunami to reach Californian shores at most.

it took an hour and a half for the tsunami to reach sri lanka from indonesia. those two countries are much, much closer to each other than hawaii is to california. they would probably have somewhere in the area of 7 hours.

now, 7 hours to move 30 mins walking distance? even those with special needs could swing that... do you think that no one would help if they saw someone moving about on crutches or in a wheelchair?

how close do you think california is to hawaii anyways?

Oh I realize what your doing. Your taking the focus away from the question and paying attention to the stupid little details.

Jesus, it's just a hypothetical question anyway. Not a speculation, a question.

I'm through discussing the physics and the social problems of an evacuation.
they're not stupid little details. you're sitting there saying that a tsunami will take 50 mins and acting like you have to evacuate the entire state of california...

30 minutes inland is all it takes to get to safety. that's what everyone is saying a big part of the tradgedy is with sri lanka. it would have been very possible for nearly everyone to evacuate if they had only known.

i woudl also like to point out that it's more likely that a tsunami would be started in a fault line that runs parallel to the west coast of north america and they're saying that the cities that would be most fucked over woudl be the costal cities of british columbia and seattle, not so much california.

Well, France would laugh at us. The UN would say, "oh really wow. That's some bad luck." All the terrorists would send us greeting cards saying we suck and mother nature did their work. Face It. We are THE most hated country in histroy.

I don't know about that. Does any other country in the world have an illegal immigrant problem? Seems to me that if so many folks are trying to get here hand over foot, then we can't be that bad.

if i'm not mistaken, l.a. is not right on the ocean. it is at least 30 mins (walking) inland, is it not?



it took an hour and a half for the tsunami to reach sri lanka from indonesia. those two countries are much, much closer to each other than hawaii is to california. they would probably have somewhere in the area of 7 hours.

now, 7 hours to move 30 mins walking distance? even those with special needs could swing that... do you think that no one would help if they saw someone moving about on crutches or in a wheelchair?

how close do you think california is to hawaii anyways?

I got news for you. There are two places where an earthquake large enough to cause a tsunami would occur on American soil: Alaska and the Northwest coast. Large (8.0 and up) earthquakes don't happen near Hawaii. The plates aren't right. There could be a tsunami-causing earthquake near Japan or down by Chile, but we would have plenty of warning time (10 hours or more) for those.

I don't know: I remember quite a bit of sympathy and help from other nations after Sept. 2001.
Yeah, but The World Has Changed since then. ;)

Your pride will kill many! You probably will not let other nations help you.

If you cast your mind back to 9/11, or as us Brits call it, 11/9, most of the civilised world were singing the American national anthem and hanging the American flag out their windows to show their sorrow over your disaster...

That was, of course, before you slapped their hands of friendship away and dug yourselves into a political rut. You probably wouldn't get as much money, but you'd probably get more offers of aid in terms of manpower. Assuming you accepted any offers of any kind in the first place. It's only your government people dislike, not your people. I wish you'd stop complaining long enough to realise that. The people who are capable of hating the entire population of a country are not worth your attention, not numerous enough to get bothered about, not limited to hating Americans, and don't just live outside America.

I don't know about that. Does any other country in the world have an illegal immigrant problem? Seems to me that if so many folks are trying to get here hand over foot, then we can't be that bad.

Yes. Many other countries in the world have illegal immigrant problems, some more serious than others.

I don't know about that. Does any other country in the world have an illegal immigrant problem? Seems to me that if so many folks are trying to get here hand over foot, then we can't be that bad.
And this is yet another reason why other countries say americans are to a certain extent ignorant concerning...world politics. :rolleyes:

To all the Americans who have been posting in this thread, whining about how much help they give the World and yet no-one would give them help if a similar thing occurred:
The Laundrette called. THey want their hair shirts back. They're worried about the amount of blood you're getting on them over your self-flagellation.






To quote TOOL (eulogy):
"Come down. Get off your fucking cross. We need the fuckin space to nail the next fool."

you mean something like a 50 foot tsunami hitting the east coast? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/956280.stm) I would add that recent research (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3963563.stm) discounts the threat as overblown but as also rightly pointed out there is little point in outlining a 'least dangerous scenario'

As to foreign aid I have no doubt you would receive it, I know I would, despite my opinion of your current administration.

If the volcano erupts, the reef will collapse, making it worse.

Two points:
i) The nations hit are poor; they need help unlike America which is big enough to look after itself.
ii) America is disliked, even hated by many nations. A huge survey showed that the world was "America neutral" but ignored many nations that would have hated America. And yes they did survey Iraq.

Great Britain and Ireland would always come to Americas aid - everyone knows that! Blair is Bush's puppet although i am not complaining as having the USA as an ally is better than any other country!

-Also, England has an awful problem with Illegal Immigrants, all shipped from France of course, perhaps theres a problem with France!

We all know the French just want to be German. :p

There's an island off the coast of Africa, one of the Canaries I think, that has a huge slab of volcanic mountain hanging on the west coast. From the documentary I watched if it fell into the sea in one go a 200ft wave would hit the east coast of the US, the speeds quoted were something riduculous as well. Even though the chance of it happening was small the geologist said it could happen, tomorrow, in a thousands years or never.
Not a very happy thought.

well, we'd be able to recover on our own without help from anyone.

There's an island off the coast of Africa, one of the Canaries I think, that has a huge slab of volcanic mountain hanging on the west coast. From the documentary I watched if it fell into the sea in one go a 200ft wave would hit the east coast of the US, the speeds quoted were something riduculous as well. Even though the chance of it happening was small the geologist said it could happen, tomorrow, in a thousands years or never.
Not a very happy thought.
Actually they are expecting it any month, cause the internal pressure on the island has been building for centuries.

I got news for you. There are two places where an earthquake large enough to cause a tsunami would occur on American soil: Alaska and the Northwest coast. Large (8.0 and up) earthquakes don't happen near Hawaii. The plates aren't right. There could be a tsunami-causing earthquake near Japan or down by Chile, but we would have plenty of warning time (10 hours or more) for those.
i've got news for you: this wasn't my scenario. see the initial post in the thread.

Two points:
i) The nations hit are poor; they need help unlike America which is big enough to look after itself.


Yeah I'll say. Every year the US gets hurricanes, mile wide tornados, earth quakes, floods, droughts, blizzards, as well as massive fires, the odd tidal wave, and locusts every once in a while. Every year we get hit by stuff that would cripple other nations.

Does any other country in the world have an illegal immigrant problem?
yes.

Considering that the U.S. is one of the most hated nations, considering the U.S. is one of the most richest nations, considering the U.S. is one of the most powerful nations, do you think other nations would respond to our aid as quickly or at all?

For one, the death toll would be much larger. Considering a 9.0 earthquake in the Pacific Coast a little East of Hawaii. Hawaii would be hit terribly. British Columbia would be hit hard. Baja California would be hit hard.

Even worse, San Fransisco, San Diego, Long Beach, Orange County, and perhaps even L.A. Imagine the death toll! It would make the events in Asia look like child's play. Imagine all the plundering and the immediate increase in crime. Imagine the economic problems.

Would we still receive $2 billion in aid? Or a check for $5.50 and a "Good luck"?

I'm sure you would get help, just because America's leaders suck doesn't mean its people do.

Yeah I'll say. Every year the US gets hurricanes, mile wide tornados, earth quakes, floods, droughts, blizzards, as well as massive fires, the odd tidal wave, and locusts every once in a while. Every year we get hit by stuff that would cripple other nations.

Yes, but America's HUGE. When a large portion of a country is hit by a natural disaster, the consequences can be terrible, especially a steep drop in economy. Most natural disasters don't affect the US as much as they would other nations.

it's impossible to decide the actual events that would happen athough the majority aid would probably come from europe and the friendlier areas of the other side of the pacific while other areas such as thailand and china would contribute although the amount would not be so significant. you also have to look at that fact that many people in the affected areas see the work of America especially as more of the advancement of the marshall plan to atleast attain better relations throughout the far east but even in this horrendus situation isnt it possible for people o be using it to their own advantage after all human nature is greed


"man is the only creature who has the ability to blush, or the need"
- Mark Twain

Considering that the U.S. is one of the most hated nations, considering the U.S. is one of the most richest nations, considering the U.S. is one of the most powerful nations, do you think other nations would respond to our aid as quickly or at all?

For one, the death toll would be much larger. Considering a 9.0 earthquake in the Pacific Coast a little East of Hawaii. Hawaii would be hit terribly. British Columbia would be hit hard. Baja California would be hit hard.

Even worse, San Fransisco, San Diego, Long Beach, Orange County, and perhaps even L.A. Imagine the death toll! It would make the events in Asia look like child's play. Imagine all the plundering and the immediate increase in crime. Imagine the economic problems.

Would we still receive $2 billion in aid? Or a check for $5.50 and a "Good luck"?

Oh dear God I hope this doesn't happen, because if it does, my girlfriend is as good as dead, and that's all that will matter to me if it does happen.

It's not just that the US is richer nation and would thus is better able to absorb and repair damages after natural disasters - it's also that the buildings are better constructed and able to withstand impact better. There are very few bamboo and tin shacks on the US coasts.

Plus, unlike the coastlines bordering the Indian Ocean, the North American coastline is made up of mostly fjords, which help to dissipate the impact of tsunamis. The massive Alaskan earthquake of 1964 caused really weird tsunami effects - places like Prince Rupert, which were close to the epicenter, got very little damage, while places like Port Hardy, which is much further away (north end of Vancouver Island) got harder hit.

As for living on Vancouver Island, if Victoria got hit by a tsunami, there is really no where for us to evacuate. There are only two ways off the island - ferry and airplane, and only one highway to high ground. Most of us who live here know that if the 'Big One' comes, we're dead. We're just gambling that the 'Big One' doesn't hit anytime soon. That and hoping that all the big apartment buildings on Dallas Rd (waterfront) slow the wave down a little.

i will be flamed for this but i would laugh , then sit around and get on with my life. you should be able to sort your selves out seing as you can sort everyone elses lives out

I have no liking for the current US government and it's foreign policy, if there were a humanitarian disaster in the US, and my nation could help but the government chose not to, I'd be worse than furious... :mad:

Of course other nations would help... :rolleyes:

For one, the death toll would be much larger. Considering a 9.0 earthquake in the Pacific Coast a little East of Hawaii. Hawaii would be hit terribly. British Columbia would be hit hard. Baja California would be hit hard.

Even worse, San Fransisco, San Diego, Long Beach, Orange County, and perhaps even L.A. Imagine the death toll! It would make the events in Asia look like child's play.



Why are you assuming the death toll would be so much higher? The areas hit by the Tsunamis were much more populated than the American areas you are speaking of. Not to mention that buildings constructed in the U.S are of much higher quality than the majority of buildings and home swept away in the Tsunami...the death toll would certainly be high, but not nearly equal to what has happened in Asia.

I think the US would get lot's of aid. :(

I do not really see what kind of disaster could occur that the US could not deal with.

Earthquakes? It has had them before and has been coping well of late, thanks to improved building codes.

Typhoons it doesn't get, and hurricanes aren't anywhere near the kind of problem they would be if there were large expanses of densely populated low-lying coastal land prone to flooding. For example, as in Bangladesh.

Flooding from excessive rainfall, you only have to compare the recent experiences of Mozambique and central Europe to see how well placed the US would be. Mozambique needed bailing out by foreign aid agencies and air forces, central Europe simply ended up with a large insurance bill.

A nuclear power plant meltdown would be a different matter, but even Ukraine came through that more or less OK, with the resources of the US, I do not see such an event being internally unmanagable.

Tsunamis, well, the volcano on La Palma could blast half the island into the Atlantic and destroy the US Eastern seaboard, but Central and NE South America and southern Europe would have problems of their own. There would be more urgent places to dedicate aid.

So I would suggest that the US has sufficient infrastructure in place to cope with virtually any kind of disaster that can be envisaged, without the need for foreign aid.

EDIT: It goes without saying that drought and famine are distant prospects. ;)

Considering that the U.S. is one of the most hated nations, considering the U.S. is one of the most richest nations, considering the U.S. is one of the most powerful nations, do you think other nations would respond to our aid as quickly or at all?

For one, the death toll would be much larger. Considering a 9.0 earthquake in the Pacific Coast a little East of Hawaii. Hawaii would be hit terribly. British Columbia would be hit hard. Baja California would be hit hard.

Even worse, San Fransisco, San Diego, Long Beach, Orange County, and perhaps even L.A. Imagine the death toll! It would make the events in Asia look like child's play. Imagine all the plundering and the immediate increase in crime. Imagine the economic problems.

Would we still receive $2 billion in aid? Or a check for $5.50 and a "Good luck"?

most likely we would be on our own. but thats not so bad because we could handle it just fine. besides we don't help other nations because we expect them to pay us back. or even because we expect them to love us for it, you can't buy affection. we do it because it's the right thing to do, and the vast majority of americans are good people who care about other people.

flame away all ye cynics and curmudgeons

I don't know about that. Does any other country in the world have an illegal immigrant problem? Seems to me that if so many folks are trying to get here hand over foot, then we can't be that bad.


Dude, EVERY INDUSTRIALIZED nation has an illegal immigrant problem, to european nations mainly from africa (mainly the north), to China from places like North Korea and so on. Yes the US gets the largest amount, but I feel that this simply illustrates that Americans have not yet cornered the market on ignorance. :p

It's not just that the US is richer nation and would thus is better able to absorb and repair damages after natural disasters - it's also that the buildings are better constructed and able to withstand impact better. There are very few bamboo and tin shacks on the US coasts.

This is kind of silly, considering that several of the villages utterly leveled in Aceh did not consist of "bamboo and tin shacks" but BRICK HOUSES. You can't equate the force of these things to that of hurricanes etc.

I do not really see what kind of disaster could occur that the US could not deal with.
An accident in a big military bio-research site...

This is kind of silly, considering that several of the villages utterly leveled in Aceh did not consist of "bamboo and tin shacks" but BRICK HOUSES. You can't equate the force of these things to that of hurricanes etc.

Yes, I understand that. Do note that I also mentioned that a well-placed tsunami would level Victoria, BC, Canada, and we don't have bamboo and tin shacks either.

But in the areas that were hit by the Indian Ocean tsunami were, for the most part, impoverished. Yes, tsunamis can level well constructed buildings BUT its effects are MUCH MUCH worse when the majority of buildings in the area are not well constructed. That's what I was saying.

I think the media overreaction in the US is shameful.

Not only is it generating fear in the US without merit but it's also making the disaster more about the US than the countries actually affected.

I don't know if any other countries' news agencies are doing the "What if" game concerning tsunamis. I live in Canada and the only articles I've read on the matter are concerning Aid and the hubbub about DART being sent out a bit too late.

They'd blame North Korea and start another war.

But seriously, I really don't know, they would probably dispatch the National Guard and go hunting for hillbillies in a Louisiana byue (Amos Moses?).

Sorry joking again.

:D

For one, the death toll would be much larger.
No it wouldn't. Remember that Southest Asia is one of the most heavily populated areas in the world.

Sri Lanka = 20 million people
Indonesia = 238 million
India = 1,065 million
Bangladesh = 141 million
Thailand = 62 million
Burma = 42 million

It is quite a bit more populous than the west coast of North America. But hey, American lives are worth more, right? :Rolleyes:

Utter, unadulterated, unqualified bullshit. This is nothing more than a myth perpetrated by the far left in an attempt to discredit President Bush and through him, the entire Country. I don't for a moment believe it. :)
Well, I wouldn't go as far to say that you're hated, but your government sure is hated. No this isn't lefty bullshit, I actually live outside America.

Well, judging from the reaction in this thread, I'd will say that the US (and other affected countries) would get help. Less than now, but then again, they wouldn't need as much as they can more easily foot the bill.

And the american public and media would either a) downplay the international help or b) act surprised about it. As can be gleamed by the american posters in this thread who think they wouldn't get one cent.

I would alos like to mention, in case it has not been stated, that during the last hurricane crisis in Florida, the US did recieve internationnal help. Maybe not from gevernment but charities like the Red Cross and private donations did go Florida's way. It would seem that memory is truly a forgetfull memory.

This is not entire speculative. It is now know that each of the Hawiaian Islands in turn except the big island has partially collapsed into the ocean the shock waves from which have driven Tsunamiis far inland all around th Pacific rim. In Australia, remnants of the last collpase have been traced hundreds of mile inland. The is a fissure now across a sizable part of the western portion of the big island, when it collapses (and it is pretty clear it is a question of when not if) there will be massive devastation across every coastal zone on the Pacific rim.What we are seeing now is minor by comparison. Also there is growing evidence of a similar pattern of collapse in the Canary Islands having similar effects on the Atlantic Rim.

wouldn't the waves dissipate before reaching australia?

and at any rate, by that time, no lives would be lost down under, they would have hours and hours to evacuate people before a wave hits. all that would be lost would be stuff.


^ Physics major. :rolleyes:

You all are focusing on the tsunami aspect of the effect of an major ( 8.4 and up ) quake here in the US. One of the two greatest quake dangers is relatively unknown, but would devestate the heartland of the US.

The New Madrid Seismic zone is highly underrated and under studied for the amount of danger it poses to the US.

Here's a map of the area that would be affected, and not a wave insight, save for when the Mississippi starts running backwards ( as it has done in the past after earthquakes in the area )

Map (http://www.atddm.com/Compmap.jpg)