NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: This is rather worrying. Your assessment of the risk?


World at Risk for Major Attack (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_risk_062305,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl)


Associated Press
June 23, 2005

WASHINGTON - The world faces an estimated 50 percent chance of a nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological attack over the next five years, according to national security analysts surveyed for a congressional study released Wednesday.

Using a poll of 85 nonproliferation and national security experts, the report also estimated the risk of attack by weapons of mass destruction at as high as 70 percent over the coming decade.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee surveyed analysts around the world in late 2004 and early this year to determine what they thought was the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction.

The study was commissioned by committee Chairman Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., whose nonproliferation efforts in Congress have been credited with helping the states of the former Soviet Union lessen their stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

"The bottom line is this: For the foreseeable future, the United States and other nations will face an existential threat from the intersection of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction," Lugar said in a statement.

Committee aides sent out surveys asking respondents the percentage probability that a biological, chemical, nuclear and radiological attack would occur over the next five and 10 years.

"If one compounds these answers, the odds of some type of WMD attack occurring during the next decade are extremely high," the report said, using the acronym for weapons of mass destruction.

The study said the risks of biological or chemical attacks were comparable to or slightly higher than the risk of a nuclear attack. However, the study found a "significantly higher" risk of a radiological attack.

It also said:

-Three-fourths of those surveyed said one or two new countries would acquire nuclear weapons during the next five years, and as many as five new countries could have such weapons over the next 10 years.

-Four-fifths of those surveyed said their country was not spending enough money on nonproliferation efforts.

-Survey respondents also agreed that terrorists - rather than governments - were more likely to carry out a nuclear attack.

I saw this in my local paper Eutrusca. All we can do is pray that it won't come to pass.

Of course there's a threat posed by biological, chemical and radioactive attack, but the statistic is false. A more accurate veiw would be say "50% risk of a terrorist attack on Washington DC in the next five years".

*cough*propaganda*cough*

50%? probably more than that. if saddam had operative nukes he would have probably used them against the u.s. Than a nuclear war would start. think about it. some countries would side with iran because the iranis were provoked.some would probably join the u.s. because they were the victims of the nuke. that could easily elevate to "armageddon"
:(

I think that it's just to scare people into trusting their own govenments. The more people are scared of nuclear weapons, the more they will support their governments in aquiring or building more of them. Ironic how this study actually increases the likelyhood of an attack.

I would guess the odds are much higher, as there has been a biological warfare attack since 9/11 (remember the Anthrax attacks) and that culprit was never caught. My guess is that an attack with a weapon of mass destruction is almost a certainty in the next five years.

The scale of the attack is the biggest question.

This message brought to you by the same people who thought Iraq had a uranium enrichment program. I don't think Bar ever read little Georgie "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" as a boy. And I'm not too sure his wife can read it to him now.

As an aside, does anyone else get that "the aliens are coming to teach us how to live in harmony" impression when they look at the first lady's eyes?

50%? probably more than that. if saddam had operative nukes he would have probably used them against the u.s. Than a nuclear war would start. think about it. some countries would side with iran because the iranis were provoked.some would probably join the u.s. because they were the victims of the nuke. that could easily elevate to "armageddon"
:(

some of you "utopia" types might say "he would neverm do a thing like that.
if he has enough will power to invade a country that has very important oil areas that could easily provoke larger nations into attacking him. also murdering millions of people is no small factor. i think saddam could have easily launched a nuke at the u.s. or any other country that was supporting us. think about it. if he has enough willpower (or insanity) to kill millions of people he could have easily pressed a big red button, if he had (has depending on what you believe) any nukes. :(

*cough*propaganda*cough*
[ mystified look ] Why do you say it's propaganda? That's just weird. To what end?

trusting your government is exactly what you need to do. the president is elected because the country thinks that he is the most fit for office. you're supposed to trust your superiors. it's the simple chain of command.

This message brought to you by the same people who thought Iraq had a uranium enrichment program. I don't think Bar ever read little Georgie "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" as a boy. And I'm not too sure his wife can read it to him now.

As an aside, does anyone else get that "the aliens are coming to teach us how to live in harmony" impression when they look at the first lady's eyes?
You are cynicl, illogical and insulting.

trusting your government is exactly what you need to do. the president is elected because the country thinks that he is the most fit for office. you're supposed to trust your superiors. it's the simple chain of command.

Its governments who built theese wmd's in the first place? And now they want to build more? How can you tust them?

This message brought to you by the same people who thought Iraq had a uranium enrichment program. I don't think Bar ever read little Georgie "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" as a boy. And I'm not too sure his wife can read it to him now.

As an aside, does anyone else get that "the aliens are coming to teach us how to live in harmony" impression when they look at the first lady's eyes?


if an insane dictator had nukes, he should be relieved of their destructive power. it doesn't matter what size. a nuke's a nuke. you'd be surprised at how touchy some governments are about nukes of any kind.

if an insane dictator had nukes, he should be relieved of their destructive power. it doesn't matter what size. a nuke's a nuke. you'd be surprised at how touchy some governments are about nukes of any kind.
Yea, America needs to stop people having nukes, because theyre bad, and only America can have nukes anyway!

Its governments who built theese wmd's in the first place? And now they want to build more? How can you tust them?

humans have to have leaders. right or wrong, you should follow them. that's my problem with democracy. if things are going well don't go and screw things up!

Yea, America needs to stop people having nukes, because theyre bad, and only America can have nukes anyway!

you're being sarcastic. i didn't say it was only america. nukes are a double sided deal. you can use them to defend but using them to defend will end up having them used against you.

One of the books I read at a very young age was "Nuclear War -- What's in it FOR YOU?". It was published by Pocket Books in 1982.

They did three books in the "Ground Zero" series, which was a nonfiction series about modern (geopolitical) warfare. Although the books are now dated, they do offer a pretty interesting perspective -- even today.

For example, the list of Nuclear Nations on page 225:
(Remember, this is from 1982):

Current members:
USA (1945)
USSR (1949)
Great Britain (1952)
France (1960)
China (1964)
India (1974)

Probable Current Members:
Israel
South Africa
(note by me: South Africa DID have at least 2 weapons, but destroyed them in the 80s. I assume the Israelis have them.)

Probably Will Try (Could be members in 10 years):
Iraq
Libya
Pakistan

Hmm.
Iraq certainly tried.. and Israel hit them in the 80s... (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_iraq_1981.php)

Libya was certainly trying. (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/01/06/pakistan.korea.nukes/)

Pakistan now has the bomb.

And this was in a cheap paperback. You'd have hoped that that US Gov't would have done more since then to make these things not have happened...

Now the question becomes... what else is known today? :eek:

you're being sarcastic.
5 points for you.

Yea, America needs to stop people having nukes, because theyre bad, and only America can have nukes anyway!
Exactly! And don't you forget it, either! :D

Its governments who built theese wmd's in the first place? And now they want to build more? How can you tust them?

i'm not a midless follower of whoever is in charge. if someone really screws up, i'll do my best to cause a change in power. i'm not worried about my own country. i'm worried for the world.

50%? probably more than that. if saddam had operative nukes he would have probably used them against the u.s. Than a nuclear war would start. think about it. some countries would side with iran because the iranis were provoked.some would probably join the u.s. because they were the victims of the nuke. that could easily elevate to "armageddon" :(

Assuming he'd had a reason to. And assuming he decided that blowing up a small area of the US would be worth losing his entire country, people and life. There may be people like that, but it does take /some/ intelligence to be a dictator. And also a lust for power. Do you think, having attained that power, he would have thrown it all away just to turn Washington DC into a mushroom cloud?

Yea, America needs to stop people having nukes, because theyre bad, and only America can have nukes anyway!

And then it can instantly win any war it likes just by threatening to use a nuclear bomb on the enemy capital. I wrote that story - it didn't work because China had refused to give up its nukes and allied with the US' opponent.

Yea, America needs to stop people having nukes, because theyre bad, and only America can have nukes anyway!


America has no buisness stoping people from having nukes. I think that all wmd's or even all weapons should be outlawed, but look at how good of a job america did at "disarming" Iraq. They had failed before they even started because Iraq had no weapons.

America has no buisness stoping people from having nukes. I think that all wmd's or even all weapons should be outlawed, but look at how good of a job america did at "disarming" Iraq. They had failed before they even started because Iraq had no weapons.
And just who is going to enforce all those weapons being outlawed, hmmm?

America has no buisness stoping people from having nukes. I think that all wmd's or even all weapons should be outlawed, but look at how good of a job america did at "disarming" Iraq. They had failed before they even started because Iraq had no weapons.
yea....my post went right over your head didn't it?

One of the books I read at a very young age was "Nuclear War -- What's in it FOR YOU?". It was published by Pocket Books in 1982.

They did three books in the "Ground Zero" series, which was a nonfiction series about modern (geopolitical) warfare. Although the books are now dated, they do offer a pretty interesting perspective -- even today.

For example, the list of Nuclear Nations on page 225:
(Remember, this is from 1982):

Current members:
USA (1945)
USSR (1949)
Great Britain (1952)
France (1960)
China (1964)
India (1974)

Probable Current Members:
Israel
South Africa
(note by me: South Africa DID have at least 2 weapons, but destroyed them in the 80s. I assume the Israelis have them.)

Probably Will Try (Could be members in 10 years):
Iraq
Libya
Pakistan

Hmm.
Iraq certainly tried.. and Israel hit them in the 80s... (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_iraq_1981.php)

Libya was certainly trying. (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/01/06/pakistan.korea.nukes/)

Pakistan now has the bomb.

And this was in a cheap paperback. You'd have hoped that that US Gov't would have done more since then to make these things not have happened...

Now the question becomes... what else is known today? :eek:

i think the nuclear weapons should be destroyed the technology lost as mankind now has the technology to destroy itself. why keep the weapons if you don't dare use them? :confused: that's my point of view, to put it bluntly

I am having a little difficulty reconciling this:

trusting your government is exactly what you need to do. the president is elected because the country thinks that he is the most fit for office. you're supposed to trust your superiors. it's the simple chain of command.

With this:


i'm not a midless follower of whoever is in charge. if someone really screws up, i'll do my best to cause a change in power. i'm not worried about my own country. i'm worried for the world.

Anyone else see the contradictions?

This survey is propaganda and a waste of our tax dollars. The U.S. has the most nuclear weapons of anyone (I think) so why shouldn't other countries have them too? It's only fair -said slightly sarcastically-

yea....my post went right over your head didn't it?
He's not alone. Why not try being a bit more comprehensible? :)

yea....my post went right over your head didn't it?

O my bad i didnt think u were being sarcastic. woops

This survey is propaganda and a waste of our tax dollars. The U.S. has the most nuclear weapons of anyone (I think) so why shouldn't other countries have them too? It's only fair -said slightly sarcastically-
Oh, I totally agree! Let's divy up all of the WMDs in the world so that even Togo gets its share. That way, no one would ever go to war because they would always be afraid that some tinpot dictatorship would nuke 'em. :rolleyes:

And just who is going to enforce all those weapons being outlawed, hmmm?

anyone who fears for thew survival of mankind. duh.


one nuke cannot destroy the world, but one nuke can set off a domino effect that can.

Oh, I totally agree! Let's divy up all of the WMDs in the world so that even Togo gets its share. That way, no one would ever go to war because they would always be afraid that some tinpot dictatorship would nuke 'em. :rolleyes:\\


or not have the nukes at all

anyone who fears for thew survival of mankind. duh.


one nuke cannot destroy the world, but one nuke can set off a domino effect that can.
You should at least try to answer the question. Who???

He's not alone. Why not try being a bit more comprehensible? :)
Yea, but that's so much less fun.

\\


or not have the nukes at all
And you intend to accomplish this wonderment how?

Yea, but that's so much less fun.
[ Invites Nadkor to perform an impossible act upon his own body. ]

banning nukes would help protect the environment that is vital for mankinds advance in technology and other vitals of the continuation of human history.

what's the point of having them if you're not going to use them?

[ Invites Nadkor to perform an impossible act upon her own body. ]

Better :p

And you intend to accomplish this wonderment how?

popular support. swaying the u.s. vote with anti - nuke activists like me could set an example. hopefully :(

You should at least try to answer the question. Who???

Obviously we cant wipe out all weapons over night. Its the stae of mind that people have that's the problem. WMD's are built to protect humans from other humasn. Maybe if we stopped being so paranoid and embraced our brothers rather than feared them, then we'd be on to something. That still doesnt really answer you're question though. Maybe theres a way to dismantle an atmoic bomb. Bono could help us on that one. lol

Bono could help us on that one. lol
Yea, we should use all our nukes on Bono.

I really quite like that idea.... :)

banning nukes would help protect the environment that is vital for mankinds advance in technology and other vitals of the continuation of human history.

what's the point of having them if you're not going to use them?
Who ... is ... going ... to ... enforce ... such ... a ... ban???

Better :p
Weird.

nukes can set off a domino effect that leads to the destruction of the world. if the victim country retaliates. and if there's a war, there's one thing i know. the u.s. will get involved. and fighting against someone who posseses nukes and has publicly displayed that he has no fright of using them, would make it very risky to get involved. if we didn't than the victim would probably surrender, or get more wmd's dropped on it.

Weird.
Yea....now you've lost me. Poisoned chalice i suppose.

Who ... is ... going ... to ... enforce ... such ... a ... ban???

you're right. such a ban would be difficult to enfroce but we need to at least stop the further production of nuclear weapons while we still can.

Any body got an idea on what to do with all the nukes if they were banned??

Who ... is ... going ... to ... enforce ... such ... a ... ban???

read the whole thread and you'll find out. i'm not going to say it again. DUH

Yea....now you've lost me.
One can only hope. :rolleyes:

read the whole thread and you'll find out. i'm not going to say it again. DUH
To be fair, you haven't actually answered his question at all.

One can only hope. :rolleyes:
How kind :rolleyes:

you're right. such a ban would be difficult to enfroce but we need to at least stop the further production of nuclear weapons while we still can.

Any body got an idea on what to do with all the nukes if they were banned??


that's the hard part. what to do with them. i guess you could somehow convert it in to economic energy. :rolleyes:

How kind :rolleyes:
I know. I don't want to be deleated.

that's the hard part. what to do with them. i guess you could somehow convert it in to economic energy. :rolleyes:

What is economic energy?

To be fair, you haven't actually answered his question at all.

popular support. there's bound to be millions of people with similar views getting rid of the u.s. nukes would set an example to the other countries, and give hope to other groups that support that in other wmd possesing countries.

Who ... is ... going ... to ... enforce ... such ... a ... ban???

(Does best Jon Stewart impersonation)
Damn you and your use of painfully obvious logic!! :D

What is economic energy?


i dunno. i didn't really make that clear. energy that everyone can use

popular support. swaying the u.s. vote with anti - nuke activists like me could set an example. hopefully :(

If you have not noticed, multi-flavored activists are what is driving the democratic party into the ground.

popular support. there's bound to be millions of people with similar views getting rid of the u.s. nukes would set an example to the other countries, and give hope to other groups that support that in other wmd possesing countries.
Popular support means fuck all in the grand scheme of things. Popular support won't make coutnries give up nukes, especially not dictatorships who have no need for public support.

i dunno. i didn't really make that clear. energy that everyone can use
Oh.

popular support. there's bound to be millions of people with similar views getting rid of the u.s. nukes would set an example to the other countries, and give hope to other groups that support that in other wmd possesing countries.


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Right. That'll work. :rolleyes:

First of all, they surveyed people who are non-proliferationists what they thought the possiblity of an attack is. You are not a non-proliferationist if you think it's not a problem. In effect, we've asked a bunch of people who think it's bad if it was bad. Oddly enough, they said yes...

So the 'percentage' is more arbitrary than your chance of rain today.

So what have we done? We had a few comperable 'threats' and we went after the one cat the didn't have a nuke. What does that tell other nations that don't want the US all over them? Get yourself a nuke, you get yourself a seat at the table. It's the precedent that we set.

What does this survey say? "Boogaty boogaty boogaty. They're going to get you-be scared, don't question things, we're protecting you from the bad people..." Is it tangeble? Is it usefull? "At 50% then we do this." Nope-all it tells you is to be afraid.

And obey.

read the whole thread and you'll find out. i'm not going to say it again. DUH

sorry about how rude i was. i thought i posted it but i didn't.

How kind :rolleyes:

generally in a debate, someone makes a point, provides some evidence and lays it out (which was done here)..

the person who disagrees refutes the point, or makes a counterpoint, and provides some evidence, and lays it out ..... other than some cyncism, and some rather obscure statements from a various people, nobody has bothered to refute the main point

so Nadkor, do you actually have a point?

The thread starts off with the assertion backed by an article from a reputable source that there is a 50% chance of an attack on someone by someone using weapons of mass destruction. Now thats hardly a big piece of news, since such attacks have occured in the last 20 years by terrorist type organizations or individuals (Sarin gas attack in Tokyo, Anthrax attack in the US) so this prediction as such isn't really very revealing.

But nobody has actually refuted it either....

I know. I don't want to be deleated.
Fine, have a problem with me. I was only correcting your post.

I can't get that quote, "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die." out of my head. Just thought you all might like to know.

First of all, they surveyed people who are non-proliferationists what they thought the possiblity of an attack is. You are not a non-proliferationist if you think it's not a problem. In effect, we've asked a bunch of people who think it's bad if it was bad. Oddly enough, they said yes...

So the 'percentage' is more arbitrary than your chance of rain today.

So what have we done? We had a few comperable 'threats' and we went after the one cat the didn't have a nuke. What does that tell other nations that don't want the US all over them? Get yourself a nuke, you get yourself a seat at the table. It's the precedent that we set.

What does this survey say? "Boogaty boogaty boogaty. They're going to get you-be scared, don't question things, we're protecting you from the bad people..." Is it tangeble? Is it usefull? "At 50% then we do this." Nope-all it tells you is to be afraid.

And obey.

having all the wmd possesing countries in a wmd organization would make it easier to send a plea to that one organization to somehow dispose of, and perhaps put to good use, the nuclear weapons

Popular support means fuck all in the grand scheme of things. Popular support won't make coutnries give up nukes, especially not dictatorships who have no need for public support.

Thats a good point i guess. I never heard of a governent halting nuclear weapons manufacturing just because some of the people wanted it. But look at a country like canada. They never had nukes and nobody in canada really wants em. And they've never been in a threat to other countries so, other countries leave them alone. Its the menatlisty of the whole world that needs to change.

so Nadkor, do you actually have a point?

Yea.....you will notice I haven't actually argued with any points (apart from the "popular opinion enforcing a ban on nukes" one, which was easy), so really I am not part of any debate.

So i'm not sure what your reason for saying that was...?

Thats a good point i guess. I never heard of a governent halting nuclear weapons manufacturing just because some of the people wanted it. But look at a country like canada. They never had nukes and nobody in canada really wants em. And they've never been in a threat to other countries so, other countries leave them alone. Its the menatlisty of the whole world that needs to change.

popular view = change of mentality

it will be difficult, but anything is possible. besides, there are'nt many wmd possesing dictatorships.

Thats a good point i guess. I never heard of a governent halting nuclear weapons manufacturing just because some of the people wanted it. But look at a country like canada. They never had nukes and nobody in canada really wants em. And they've never been in a threat to other countries so, other countries leave them alone. Its the menatlisty of the whole world that needs to change.

To be fair, Canada has "defense by default", in living next to the world's largest arsenal. ;)

having all the wmd possesing countries in a wmd organization would make it easier to send a plea to that one organization to somehow dispose of, and perhaps put to good use, the nuclear weapons
I'm not sure what you are saying. I'm not trying to be mean or sarcastic, I just can't unpack that.

Are you suggesting that countries with nukes can plea to an organization to dispose of nuclear weapons? You can't nuke an organization, so the 'nuclear threat' doesn't work against organizations with 'no borders.' But that's obvious, so I don't think that's what you meant.

Thats a good point i guess. I never heard of a governent halting nuclear weapons manufacturing just because some of the people wanted it. But look at a country like canada. They never had nukes and nobody in canada really wants em. And they've never been in a threat to other countries so, other countries leave them alone. Its the menatlisty of the whole world that needs to change.
It won't work. No matter how many people are against it, there will always be some tin pot dictator somewhere trying to build nukes, and the other countries will need them for their own security.

And I am a firm believer that the Cold War never 'got hot' because of MAD.

popular view = change of mentality

it will be difficult, but anything is possible. besides, there are'nt many wmd possesing dictatorships.

Dude, after 100+ years, we can't get the world to drive on the same side of the road!

You are cynicl, illogical and insulting.
Cynical: Check. It's the only rational stance to adopt when the government constantly lies to you.

Illogical: Uncheck. Quite the opposite. The only illogical stance is to continue to stand by such a perpetually dishonest group.

And the first lady's eyes are really weird. Vapid.

Insulting: Check. Considering how many American soldiers have been killed and disfigured for their lies, insults are less than they deserve. The firing squad is too good for them. What's shocking is that a military man such as yourself could support this enterprise.

if you don't like my idea i'll have you know something.

i'm 11 years old. and the stuff that i'm posting is my political view

. [QUOTE]And they've never been in a threat to other countries so, other countries leave them alone.

That is so cute. I simply don't have the heart to argue the logic Magimae. Best wishes to you. :p

Meh!

If it happens.....well guess it was our time to go.

Not going to worry about it too much. I lived on the tail end of the world obliteration threat so I guess I am used to it. Heh! I remember doing Nuke attack practice in school. :rolleyes: As one teacher said "We make you put your head under your desks so we can run out of the room." ;)

It won't work. No matter how many people are against it, there will always be some tin pot dictator somewhere trying to build nukes, and the other countries will need them for their own security.

And I am a firm believer that the Cold War never 'got hot' because of MAD.


What's MAD?

Dude, after 100+ years, we can't get the world to drive on the same side of the road!

here's my really warped idea. one single world government, where nations are like states, and are part of one megabody that is the world government.


"nations are like states" sounds familiar? front and last words?

What's MAD?
Mutually Assured Destruction.

i know. my idea will probably never happen , but it's a nice idea. also it's a good brain excersice :)

What's MAD?
Both sides have enough nukes to wipe each other out, so no side attacks the other....

Mutually Assured Destruction


edit: Oh, Cannot think of a Name posted first

It won't work. No matter how many people are against it, there will always be some tin pot dictator somewhere trying to build nukes, and the other countries will need them for their own security.

And I am a firm believer that the Cold War never 'got hot' because of MAD.

...and you are absolutely right.

Mutually Assured Destruction.

Thanks. Its sad to think that the olny reason for people to not kill one another is for fear of being killed. But thats the way we think. Thats gotta change. But then I guess you'd get some crazy guy and he'd take advantage of that mentality and kill every one. Crap!

To be fair, Canada has "defense by default", in living next to the world's largest arsenal. ;)

Perhaps that is true. But another example of the canadian passive mentaily is the relatively small gun death rate compared to america. Theres no need to protect your self form other guns, so people dont buy em. Plus ther're not allowed cause its illegal to bear arms.

(Does best Jon Stewart impersonation)
Damn you and your use of painfully obvious logic!! :D
I know. Damned infuriating, isn't it. :p

edit: Oh, Cannot think of a Name posted first
Finally I'm the first person to post something...it only took 6,000+ tries...

Perhaps that is true. But another example of the canadian passive mentaily is the relatively small gun death rate compared to america. Theres no need to protect your self form other guns, so people dont buy em. Plus ther're not allowed cause its illegal to bear arms.
IIRC they have a similar level of gun ownership to the US, just far less gun deaths.

Fine, have a problem with me. I was only correcting your post.
LOL! I don't have a problem with you any more than I do with quite a few others on here. If I hurt your feelings, I apologize. I tend to get a bit ... um ... abrasive at times. Sorry.

here's my really warped idea. one single world government, where nations are like states, and are part of one megabody that is the world government.

It's a fine Utopia. We're at least half a thousand years away from it.

"nations are like states" sounds familiar? front and last words?

A nation is a group of people in a limited geographic area with a similar culture.
For example, both the French and the Basques are nations, though only one of them have a soverign country.
Another example would be the Navajo (or indeed most Native American tribes).

A state is any geograpically defined area which is soverign, which is not necessarily possessed by any one nation.
For example, North and South Korea are both states, but not nation states, as both sides are Koreans.
Another example is Vatican City (The Holy See)... it's the seat of the Roman Catholic Church, but it really isn't a nation since anyone can join or leave the church. (One can't stop being Italian, though.)

A nation-state is a combination of the two: a state that IS (at least mostly) possessed by a nation.
For example, Japan is a nation-state, as just about everybody there is Japanese.
Other examples would be Mexico or Austria.

i know. my idea will probably never happen , but it's a nice idea. also it's a good brain excersice :)
Lord knows, you're in desperate need of that! :D

if you don't like my idea i'll have you know something.

i'm 11 years old. and the stuff that i'm posting is my political view

i know. my idea will probably never happen , but it's a nice idea. also it's a good brain excersice
Lord knows, you're in desperate need of that! :D
Nice. Make sure you get his milk money while you're at it...

some of you "utopia" types might say "he would neverm do a thing like that.
if he has enough will power to invade a country that has very important oil areas that could easily provoke larger nations into attacking him. also murdering millions of people is no small factor. i think saddam could have easily launched a nuke at the u.s. or any other country that was supporting us. think about it. if he has enough willpower (or insanity) to kill millions of people he could have easily pressed a big red button, if he had (has depending on what you believe) any nukes. :(

No. Saddam was a bully who never picked on countries bigger than his.

Consider:
1) For a good five years Saddam was afraid of Iran and gave up land concessions when Iran demanded them. he only invaded when the Iranian Revolution had purged their military and left them helpless. Once the war started going badly Saddam sued for peace.
2) Saddam invaded Kuwait, a nation the size of Rhode Island, thinking he could get away with it. In the words of Bush Sr "...what I think happened was [Saddam] didn't believe me when I said we would liberate Kuwait". When his conscripts started getting their asses kicked by us he retreated without even confronting us w/ the republican guard.

There would have been a 0% chance that he would attack America. He might have held a small nation hostage with WMD, but nothing even close to the games North Korea is currently playing with us. He has consistently proven how much of a spine he has, and it simply wouldn't have happened.

if you don't like my idea i'll have you know something.

i'm 11 years old. and the stuff that i'm posting is my political view
You're playing with the big boys now. You might want to read more and post less until you discover how things go here. Just a suggestion.

LOL! I don't have a problem with you any more than I do with quite a few others on here. If I hurt your feelings, I apologize. I tend to get a bit ... um ... abrasive at times. Sorry.
Heh...it's ok, I don't really mind. Thanks for the apology though :)

IIRC they have a similar level of gun ownership to the US, just far less gun deaths.

Yes, but in a country with no guns, people don't need guns to protect themselves from others with guns. You can have a country with guns and possibly a low gun death rate, but our world has wmds and so far we havnt had nuclear war, but look where they've got us. I know i keep saying it, but its the mentality we need to change.

Perhaps that is true. But another example of the canadian passive mentaily is the relatively small gun death rate compared to america. Theres no need to protect your self form other guns, so people dont buy em. Plus ther're not allowed cause its illegal to bear arms.

Yes, but that also has to do with Canada being underpopulated. And relatively homogenous: Canada mostly lacks the diversity of the US, as well as the inner city problems. (You just have the Quebecois in the east, the Asians in the west.) To say nothing of the population density. People living on top of each other means more crime. Canada has the population of California, but is larger than the US.

That last point is nothing to brag about. :(

Nice. Make sure you get his milk money while you're at it...
Well, well, well! Hello, CTN. To what do we owe this honor? :)

I posted that before I knew he was eleven. Anything else you'd like to get snide with me about?

Heh...it's ok, I don't really mind. Thanks for the apology though :)
When I'm wrong, I try to own up to it. They tell me it's part of being "mature." :D

Yes, but that also has to do with Canada being underpopulated. And relatively homogenous: Canada mostly lacks the diversity of the US, as well as the inner city problems. (You just have the Quebecois in the east, the Asians in the west.) To say nothing of the population density. People living on top of each other means more crime. Canada has the population of California, but is larger than the US.

That last point is nothing to brag about. :(

Altough i agree that canada is much less densely populated then its friends to the south, I completely disagree that Canada mostly lacks the diversity of the US. Toronot is a perfect example of a highly multi cultural city. None the less a dense population or multi culturalism is no excuse for guns and they hould still be banned.

Well, well, well! Hello, CTN. To what do we owe this honor? :)

I posted that before I knew he was eleven. Anything else you'd like to get snide with me about?
Something about pots and kettles, but I'm sure you know that...

Something about pots and kettles, but I'm sure you know that...
But of course! It's part of what makes us so popular! :D

Originaly posted by Eutrusca
You're playing with the big boys now. You might want to read more and post less until you discover how things go here. Just a suggestion.

Sorry, but I find that a little bit insulting. 12 year olds, I have found, tend to be infinatly smarter than 11 year olds.

Yes, but in a country with no guns, people don't need guns to protect themselves from others with guns. You can have a country with guns and possibly a low gun death rate, but our world has wmds and so far we havnt had nuclear war, but look where they've got us.
I'm not entirely sure what your point is there. You seem to have got yourself mixed up somewhere.

Altough i agree that canada is much less densely populated then its friends to the south, I completely disagree that Canada mostly lacks the diversity of the US. Toronot is a perfect example of a highly multi cultural city. None the less a dense population or multi culturalism is no excuse for guns and they hould still be banned.

I don't want to hijack the thread, so let's just agree to disagee on firearms.

When I'm wrong, I try to own up to it. They tell me it's part of being "mature." :D
"mature"? Who needs that!?! :D

Originally Posted by Magimae
Yes, but in a country with no guns, people don't need guns to protect themselves from others with guns.

Yeah, but who would enforce the no gun policy? An unarmed cop (because guns are banned), vs. some nut-job with a machine gun?http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=9123906#
sniper I guess it works in Canada, but I don't get how.

Yeah, but who would enforce the no gun policy? An unarmed cop (because guns are banned), vs. some nut-job with a machine gun?http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=9123906#
sniper I guess it works in Canada, but I don't get how.

It works because the Quebecois are too busy watching hockey and drinking beer to start shooting... :D

"mature"? Who needs that!?! :D
Ut oh! And how old might you be then?

I don't want to hijack the thread, so let's just agree to disagee on firearms.


good idea.

Ut oh! And how old might you be then?
19, and clinging on as hard as I can to being a teenager and being able to get away with stupid stuff. My parents have different ideas.

19, and clinging on as hard as I can to being a teenager and being able to get away with stupid stuff. My parents have different ideas.
Don't be too hard on them. That's their job. :)

Quote:

Associated Press
June 23, 2005

WASHINGTON - The world faces an estimated 50 percent chance of a nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological attack over the next five years, according to national security analysts surveyed for a congressional study released Wednesday.

---------
Of course Washington would know this...they're probably the ones planning it. >evil grin< What other nation has an announced policy of developing new types of nuclear weapons explicitly for battlefield use?

Originally Posted by Nadkor
19, and clinging on as hard as I can to being a teenager and being able to get away with stupid stuff. My parents have different ideas.

Don't all parents? I don't think I'm even allowed on the computer right now.



Originally Posted by Eutrusca
Ut oh! And how old might you be then?

Oh. My. God. The young and immature are invading.

Oh. My. God. The young and immature are invading.

If you haven't already, go to your Profile, click on "Edit Options", and turn on the signatures.

E is a Viet Nam vet...

Don't be too hard on them. That's their job. :)
Well, my parents aren't so bad. They pretty much let me do whatever I want without interference now that I'm out of school. I repay that by not getting into trouble (much :p )

If you haven't already, go to your Profile, click on "Edit Options", and turn on the signatures.

E is a Viet Nam vet...

Whaaaaaaaaaaattttt????? Whatever that means, it's not true. Look back through the forum. I'm 12.

Whaaaaaaaaaaattttt????? Whatever that means, it's not true. Look back through the forum. I'm 12.
He was saying Eutrusca is a Vietnam war veteran.

Originally Posted by Dutchmansland
Yeah, but who would enforce the no gun policy? An unarmed cop (because guns are banned), vs. some nut-job with a machine gun?http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.p...te=1&p=9123906#
sniper I guess it works in Canada, but I don't get how.


It works because the Quebecois are too busy watching hockey and drinking beer to start shooting... :D

let me clear up a few things.

1)Guns are NOT banned in canada. But you do need a Firearms Acquisition Certificate to possess and purchase any gun and ammunition. However certain weapons are banned for civilian use (restricted weapons) such as automatic weapons (MP5's AK-47's M-16's CAR-15's and rifles of a specific calibre such as the 50cal sniper rifle,etc However Police agencies are the only people allowed to have these weapons.) Prohibited weapons (such as pistols and rifles and shotguns) are only legal to people who have an FAC. anyone else caught with any weapon is in violation of The criminal code of canada. (illegal posession of a weapon)

2) Dutchmansland You may be confused with England. They have a ban on guns. hence you see the police with only billyclubs and collapsibles (however this may change after an increase in violent deaths of police officers there)

3)I AM CANADIAN (hehe sorry couldn't resist) :D

4)I live in Toronto and It truly is multicultural.

5) The separatists in quebec aren't drinking and watching hockey..they're too busy charging people for having english language signs. (courtesy of the office de le langue francais - office of french language: think french gestapo [sorry if that insults people but the analogy fits and the only thing i can think of])

6) Can some of you from the states lob a few nukes toward the separatists and destroy them for us?? It would be a better country without them!! :D lol

XENON_PLASMA
PROUD CANADIAN!!

He was saying Eutrusca is a Vietnam war veteran.

Oh. Now I feel really stupid.

Wouldn't there be a 50% chance of anything happening? as in, either it will or it won't?

Anything can happen.

Exactly for all we know we could be destroyed by a comet or asteroid, We could find an intelligent species other than our own in the universe. No one knows for sure.

XENON_PLASMA

I'm not going to read some nine pages of forum talk and people bantering about the current state of government, but how did they arrive at that statistic? What the hell are they basing it off of, the survery they gave? Is there any hard evidence one is being planned? It would seem that if there was they'd be up in arms about the specific threat and not this vague report. In all honesty it sounds like a scare tactic from face value.

It is propaganda such as this (although it may be true), that allows the US government to keep the less informed citizens chained to the principles of intolerance and keep them fed by the fear generators.

Once the citizens are in this weakened and fearful position, it is easier for the government to shift the war machine into high gear, and proceed down the imperial path to mete out death and destruction.

9/11, threat, WMD, Osama, threat, Saddam, terrorists, threat, biological weapons, 9/11, threat, Iraq, terrorists, threat, 9/11, WMD, imminent threat, 9/11.......

I say it's bullshit. If I'm wrong, oh well we'll be dead so noone can say "Told ya soo neener neener"

u didnt even start about the npt

u didnt even start about the npt
??

NOTE: This is rather worrying. Your assessment of the risk?
<snip>-Survey respondents also agreed that terrorists - rather than governments - were more likely to carry out a nuclear attack.
A CBR (NBC) attack will no more suprise me WHEN it happens than did 9/11 - whether it happens in the US or elsewhere (prolly Israel). We can't stop it.

It doesn't matter what we do on the international scene, as long as we maintain our economic position (read - according to Socialists & Terrorists - as "Greedy/Immoral bastards") and not disown/nuke Israel, we will be the focus of attacks.

Because we are (for the most part, for a while longer) Free, some will succeed. One (some) may be CBR.

While I am not particularly for the "preventitive" option (genuine preemption is OK)you wouldn't like my answer to how I would (personally) deal with the death of a US city... the government wouldn't have anything to do with it either. :eek:

It won't work. No matter how many people are against it, there will always be some tin pot dictator somewhere trying to build nukes, and the other countries will need them for their own security.

And I am a firm believer that the Cold War never 'got hot' because of MAD.

that I will agree with

Meh, I'm not worried.
It won't hit Brisbane, come what may.
The only thing I'm worried about is a WMD attack on the US and Bush attacking people/nations at random in revenge because he can't get the people who actually are responsible.

It is propaganda such as this (although it may be true), that allows the US government to keep the less informed citizens chained to the principles of intolerance and keep them fed by the fear generators.

Once the citizens are in this weakened and fearful position, it is easier for the government to shift the war machine into high gear, and proceed down the imperial path to mete out death and destruction.

9/11, threat, WMD, Osama, threat, Saddam, terrorists, threat, biological weapons, 9/11, threat, Iraq, terrorists, threat, 9/11, WMD, imminent threat, 9/11.......

the only problem with that is that it isn't propaganda if it happens to be true... civilians were killed in large numbers on 9/11, a number of people were made sick by the anthrax attacks, a large number of Japanese civilians were injured and some died from a sarin attack, a lot of people die weekly from terrorist bombs in Iraq, large numbers of people were killed by bombs in Israel, Saddam did invade both Iran and Kuwait and use chemical weapons against Kurds, Marsh Arabs and Iranians..

personally I think it will be a terrorist attack that uses a weapon of mass destruction. The only likely nation state desperate or suicidal enough to attack the US with a nuke is probably North Korea, and although Kim is as loony as a bed bug, I think he wants to hang on to power too much to risk it. The only likely (and thankfully far less likely than it was a few years back) nuclear war situation likely to occur in the near future would be India vs Pakistan.

Oh. Now I feel really stupid.

Not at all. You're new on here, and so you don't know E's posting history (or anyone else's for that matter).

But I still suggest turning on signatures. Folks (esp. the ones with high numbers of posts) put in details that could help you know what they are about, such as age, their "Political Compass", quotes, things like that. :)

the only problem with that is that it isn't propaganda if it happens to be true... civilians were killed in large numbers on 9/11, a number of people were made sick by the anthrax attacks, a large number of Japanese civilians were injured and some died from a sarin attack

Compare these to the deaths from poverty inflivcted and perpetuated by the Western powers. You see my point here?

But I still suggest turning on signatures. Folks (esp. the ones with high numbers of posts) put in details that could help you know what they are about, such as age, their "Political Compass", quotes, things like that. :)

Of course, the flipside of that is that there are likely people who will see a certain type of political compass result and immediately disagree with everything that person says.

The /other/ disadvantage is twice as much reading, which is my reason.

Compare these to the deaths from poverty inflivcted and perpetuated by the Western powers. You see my point here?

One wonders how China and India are managing to bring their countries storming into a 21st century economy. The main reason for poverty in the Third World is not the Western powers. It's caused by an endless cycle of idiotic despotic dictators and a near complete lack of knowledge of how to run a civilization.

Zimbabwe is a good example. It was just fine when the whites handed over power to the blacks. One of the strongest economies in Africa. In fact, it was the major exporters of food on the continent.

In just a short period of time, the local black government, without any help at all from "Western powers" has managed to destroy the economy as well as destroy Zimbabwe's ability to grow food - it not only no longer exports food, it can't even grow enough to feed the people who live there.

You see my point here?

Compare these to the deaths from poverty inflivcted and perpetuated by the Western powers. You see my point here?

actually, no I do not....... you mean against each othr, or against the Third World? Do you have any numbers of people killed in the Third World by each other vs numbers killed in the Third World by the Western Powers?

An excellent book, "Carnage and Culture" 2004 publishing date, discusses the military success of the Western World against everyone else, from Ancient Greece to present. One of the things it looks at is how many more people are killed by Non Western governments going back to Ancient times compared to how many were killed by us Westerners.

Most of those who died after coming into contact with the Western World died of disease, spread by incidental contact and not by deliberate act.

Have anything to back up your point?

the only problem with that is that it isn't propaganda if it happens to be true... civilians were killed in large numbers on 9/11, a number of people were made sick by the anthrax attacks, a large number of Japanese civilians were injured and some died from a sarin attack, a lot of people die weekly from terrorist bombs in Iraq, large numbers of people were killed by bombs in Israel, Saddam did invade both Iran and Kuwait and use chemical weapons against Kurds, Marsh Arabs and Iranians..

personally I think it will be a terrorist attack that uses a weapon of mass destruction. The only likely nation state desperate or suicidal enough to attack the US with a nuke is probably North Korea, and although Kim is as loony as a bed bug, I think he wants to hang on to power too much to risk it. The only likely (and thankfully far less likely than it was a few years back) nuclear war situation likely to occur in the near future would be India vs Pakistan.
The point that I was trying to make is that as long as the citizenry of a country lives in fear (often through propaganda), it is easier for the administration to keep the wheels of the war machine turning.

After WW2, the US fought wars against communism, aided and abetted by people such as Joe McCarthy, which took propaganda to a new height. Much of the residual fear of Communism is still present in the US and I have seen large doses of that on these boards. Today, anyone who is a "liberal" in the US, is somewhat viewed as a Communist. How many wars did the US fight to try and stop the spread of Communism? Many for sure.

Now that Communism is on the back burner, and somewhat contained, there is a new "ism" to "fear" and that is terrorism. Names like Stalin, Khrushchev, and Mao Tse-tung, have been replaced by names like Hussein, Bin Laden, and KIM Jong Il. How many more wars will the US fight to counter "terrorism"?

The war on Communism was fought over a difference in political ideology, and it appears that the US has been able to take the fear that was generated by 9/11 and successfully use it as a war tool in what appears to be a difference in religious ideology.

The major problem with the US's latest war on terrorism, is that it got sidetracked in Iraq and some might even suggest that it got derailed in Iraq, in pursuit of "colonialism/imperialism". Terrorism has increased as a result of this detour and hence, there will be more stories/propaganda such as the article at the beginning of this thread. However, the fear generated by such stories will keep the wheels of the war machines in perpetual motion. When will the insanity stop or maybe a better question is where?

Of course, the flipside of that is that there are likely people who will see a certain type of political compass result and immediately disagree with everything that person says.

The /other/ disadvantage is twice as much reading, which is my reason.

Possibly, but odds are they'd probably disagree anyway...
I'm a *centrist* and seem to get "attacked" more by the very liberal than by the very conservative. But then again, that's probably because there are a lot more very liberal type folks online. (The "grip map" of NS'ers shows a big preponderance to the 3rd Quadrent.)


Nah. They don't change that much. :)

http://www.worth1000.com//entries/166000/166019nsUR_w.jpg

Possibly, but odds are they'd probably disagree anyway...
I'm a *centrist* and seem to get "attacked" more by the very liberal than by the very conservative. But then again, that's probably because there are a lot more very liberal type folks online. (The "grip map" of NS'ers shows a big preponderance to the 3rd Quadrent.)

Nah. They don't change that much. :)
I've had much the same experience many times. Just last night several of our "leftistis in residence" took up the "you're no centrist" mantra because I wouldn't support their attacks on American military personnel in general because a handful have abused some of the detainees incarcerated by the US. What many forget is that you can be very pro-US internationally, but somewhat "left-leaning" when it comes to social issues at home.

You might find this thread I just started of interest: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=427892

Possibly, but odds are they'd probably disagree anyway...
I'm a *centrist* and seem to get "attacked" more by the very liberal than by the very conservative. But then again, that's probably because there are a lot more very liberal type folks online. (The "grip map" of NS'ers shows a big preponderance to the 3rd Quadrent.) Nah. They don't change that much. :)
I've seen this too. My Libertarian viewpoint has gotten me both more ad hominem attacks and forum bans from many more "Liberal" forums than "Conservative" forums....

Gotta love "Freedom of Expression... as long as it's PC/we agree with it" :rolleyes:

I've seen this too. My Libertarian viewpoint has gotten me both more ad hominem attacks and forum bans from many more "Liberal" forums than "Conservative" forums....

Gotta love "Freedom of Expression... as long as it's PC/we agree with it" :rolleyes:

Try posting on Democratic Underground. It took me a bit to figure out that if I post anything even remotely critical of Dean, or remotely positive about ANY Republican, I get tossed out.

They're also extremely paranoid over there. They believe that they're being watched by government agents, and that they are somehow secret revolutionaries.

actually, no I do not....... you mean against each othr, or against the Third World? Do you have any numbers of people killed in the Third World by each other vs numbers killed in the Third World by the Western Powers?

As a result of Western interventions (or lack of them) and trade policies something like 6000 people die every single day. Hunger mostly. War takes it's own toll which I will not count because it would happen anyway (albeit with less far-reaching conflict).

Compare this to the 3000 or so dead on 9/11 as a result of the attack. Maybe that will give you a little perspective.

In the Middle East our interventions have seen millions dead under brutal dictators WE installed. When they set up their own democracy (cf Iran) we condemn it as evil.

There's a lot of ill-will aimed our way. If we don't wake up, see that and deal with it WITHOUT military aggression and forced regime change, well, to put it mildly there will be a long line to kic us all in the teeth when we fall.

Zimbabwe is a good example. It was just fine when the whites handed over power to the blacks. One of the strongest economies in Africa. In fact, it was the major exporters of food on the continent.

Yes, when the Western invaders who'd shaped a country unnaturally through imperial ambitions left, it was just fine. Curse those blacks and their inability to keep a form of life imposed on them working properly! Curse them I say!

-- or rather, not.

Yes, when the Western invaders who'd shaped a country unnaturally through imperial ambitions left, it was just fine. Curse those blacks and their inability to keep a form of life imposed on them working properly! Curse them I say!

-- or rather, not.

I guess that Mugabe's order to blow up people's homes is some manifestation of Western oppression in your eyes?

The deliberate starvation of people at Mugabe's order is some manifestation of US abuse of power?

The deliberate dispossession of farmers of their land, and replacing them with people who have no idea how to farm, and expecting the farm to produce just like it did before is a product of imperialism?

I've seen this too. My Libertarian viewpoint has gotten me both more ad hominem attacks and forum bans from many more "Liberal" forums than "Conservative" forums....

Gotta love "Freedom of Expression... as long as it's PC/we agree with it" :rolleyes:

I'm a Connecticut Independent. I vote my conscience. :)

Ayep.

I guess that Mugabe's order to blow up people's homes is some manifestation of Western oppression in your eyes?

The deliberate starvation of people at Mugabe's order is some manifestation of US abuse of power?

The deliberate dispossession of farmers of their land, and replacing them with people who have no idea how to farm, and expecting the farm to produce just like it did before is a product of imperialism?

I didn't mention the US, actually, I was talking about... let's see, was it a British colony, or one of the others?

However, yes, actually, in a way, they are. If we hadn't marched in there and forced them to be a country when they didn't need to be, Mugabe wouldn't have actually had the power to /do/ that. We fundamentally altered the structure of their society, and now they're paying for it.

Ironically, we did what the US is doing now - we saw a location with a political system we thought less advanced than ours, and marched in to impose ours on them - and get a few side benefits on the way.

Did it work, do you think?

All we can do is pray that it won't come to pass.

Yeah, or you could try doing something about it.

One wonders how China and India are managing to bring their countries storming into a 21st century economy. The main reason for poverty in the Third World is not the Western powers. It's caused by an endless cycle of idiotic despotic dictators and a near complete lack of knowledge of how to run a civilization.

Zimbabwe is a good example. It was just fine when the whites handed over power to the blacks. One of the strongest economies in Africa. In fact, it was the major exporters of food on the continent.

In just a short period of time, the local black government, without any help at all from "Western powers" has managed to destroy the economy as well as destroy Zimbabwe's ability to grow food - it not only no longer exports food, it can't even grow enough to feed the people who live there.

You see my point here?
I was about to say "So because blacks gained power, the economy collapsed?" followed by accusations of racism but I see now that that wasn't what you were trying to say :D

I didn't mention the US, actually, I was talking about... let's see, was it a British colony, or one of the others?

However, yes, actually, in a way, they are. If we hadn't marched in there and forced them to be a country when they didn't need to be, Mugabe wouldn't have actually had the power to /do/ that. We fundamentally altered the structure of their society, and now they're paying for it.

Ironically, we did what the US is doing now - we saw a location with a political system we thought less advanced than ours, and marched in to impose ours on them - and get a few side benefits on the way.

Did it work, do you think?

It was initially a British colony. But it was an independent nation for some time after that, without the problems they have now.

Are you implying somehow that because we altered the structure of their society 250 years ago, that somehow they will NEVER be able to live as we do?

I believe the history of Meiji Japan, as well as modern day China and India show the lie you're trying to peddle. They were abused by colonialism as much as any other nation, including Zimbabwe - but they aren't sitting around trying to reward their cronies after they take power. They are building modern nations.

Sorry, you can't blame Mugabe or anything his people are doing on colonialism.

Yeah, or you could try doing something about it.

12345543211, I'm sure that we are doing something about it.

I can live with a 50-50 chance of being smushed, sizzled, or sneezed into oblivion at any given moment. I lived with less certainty during the Cold War, after all.

The difference was that it was a given, but there wasn't all the histrionic paranoia 24/7. Or ze Fathe-, uh... the "Homeland Security" super-top secret thought police to consider. Back in those days, Americans left those sort of shenanigans to the socially-backward, utterly corrupt and e-vil Soviet Union.

Memories...in the corners of my mind...

I can live with a 50-50 chance of being smushed, sizzled, or sneezed into oblivion at any given moment. I lived with less certainty during the Cold War, after all.

The difference was that it was a given, but there wasn't all the histrionic paranoia 24/7. Or ze Fathe-, uh... the "Homeland Security" super-top secret thought police to consider. Back in those days, Americans left those sort of shenanigans to the socially-backward, utterly corrupt and e-vil Soviet Union.

Memories...in the corners of my mind...

The Cold War was VERY certain: if there was war, you knew who you'd be fighting, and that it'd be over in a week, tops. It was a nice, reliable kind of tension, though.

I can live with a 50-50 chance of being smushed, sizzled, or sneezed into oblivion at any given moment. I lived with less certainty during the Cold War, after all.

The difference was that it was a given, but there wasn't all the histrionic paranoia 24/7. Or ze Fathe-, uh... the "Homeland Security" super-top secret thought police to consider. Back in those days, Americans left those sort of shenanigans to the socially-backward, utterly corrupt and e-vil Soviet Union.

Memories...in the corners of my mind...

You must have lived in Canada. You know, the place where the US used paranoia to flim-flam the country into not building its own fighters, but instead purchasing a POS US missile system.

I remember the paranoia. You have to go back to the early 1960s to see it. And the thought police were the FBI - especially during the late 1960s to early 1970s.

I had a bet in high school that we wouldn't make it to the year 2000. I lost the bet.

You must have lived in Canada. You know, the place where the US used paranoia to flim-flam the country into not building its own fighters, but instead purchasing a POS US missile system.

I remember the paranoia. You have to go back to the early 1960s to see it. And the thought police were the FBI - especially during the late 1960s to early 1970s.

I had a bet in high school that we wouldn't make it to the year 2000. I lost the bet.

Who says you have to go as far back as the 60s to see paranoia? I saw more than my fair share in the 70s and 80s, thank you very much. True, it was a little more restrained by the 80s, more properly associated with wingnut gun enthusiasts, and the even-bigger wingnuts who represented them in Washington, but they weren't (always) the ones calling the shots. Fast forward, 2005: All wingnut, all the time. Failure to cheerlead is grounds for sedition, or at least an open-ended investigation.

Anyone believes this clap-trap ? :confused:

Anyone believes this clap-trap ? :confused:

I for one sure as Hell do NOT.

It won't work. No matter how many people are against it, there will always be some tin pot dictator somewhere trying to build nukes, and the other countries will need them for their own security.
I think that nuclear proliferation beyond the five 'official' nuclear powers at first was more of the latter. Israel, India, Pakistan, and South Africa launched their respective nuclear programmes out of fear of a neighbour(s), either already nuclear-capable or with greater population.

But then some regimes, notably Iraq under Saddam and North Korea. began to seek nuclear weapons as an ultimate instrument of intimidation, not only for self-defence.

And I am a firm believer that the Cold War never 'got hot' because of MAD.
I agree with that. The fear of the Bomb made statesmen on both sides of the Iron Curtain much more cautious than they had been before.

I for one sure as Hell do NOT.

In that case, I hope you apologize if it does happen then.

if you don't like my idea i'll have you know something.

i'm 11 years old. and the stuff that i'm posting is my political view

My respect just went up for you by many percent.

wow

wow, i thought Eutrusca got off his forumban early, but no, just a minor gravedig. Does it qualify? almost 2 weeks since last post...

wow, i thought Eutrusca got off his forumban early, but no, just a minor gravedig. Does it qualify? almost 2 weeks since last post...

So Eutrusca is a grave digger?? :confused: :confused:

explain to this forum entity just what exactly is a minor gravedig in relation to the forums.

Let's ban banana peels.

So Eutrusca is a grave digger?? :confused: :confused:
No, you are. This makes two you've dug up from the back pages to post pretty much nothing.Gravedigging: Posting a reply on a long disused thread; bumping threads that aren't used anymore. Adding legitimate new material is permitted, and the acceptable age varies from forum to forum. Adding a book report in Jennifer Government ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1226) is acceptable after months of inactivity, but bumping a week-old topic in General ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227) may not be.
Knock it off, please.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
Forum and Game Rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)