NationStates Jolt Archive

Obviously, this was inspired by the 'safest country' thread.

The most dangerous country, I'd say, would probably be South Africa, hands down.

Dangerous to its own citizens or to others ?

Dangerous to its own citizens or to others ?

Dangerous to live in.

I have a graduate professor that is from Rwanda, and who has traveled accross Africa to many nations, he said he was deathly afraid when his plane even flew over Somalia, as if they had to land everyone would be killed.

Sounds like a fun place... :mp5:

Johannesburg has, assuming I recall correctly, the highest rape rate in the world. So...unless you're a guy....South Africa isn't a very safe place :(

Iraq. Lunatics blowing themselves up left and right, and an occupying army.

Johannesburg has, assuming I recall correctly, the highest rape rate in the world. So...unless you're a guy....South Africa isn't a very safe place :(

The whole country has the highest rape rate in the world. Their murder rate is second only to Colombia's. They're seven times more violent than the U.S. (per capita). They have the highest number of armed robberies in the world. They're an international drug smuggling route, comparable to Colombia.

The most dangerous country, I'd say, would probably be South Africa, hands down.
Iraq.

Johannesburg has, assuming I recall correctly, the highest rape rate in the world. So...unless you're a guy....South Africa isn't a very safe place :(

Click here (http://www.praag.co.za/rubriek137.htm) to read all about the "rainbow nation" that is the new South Africa.

It's a pretty ambiguous question. How do you determine danger, and for who? Loads of countries are dangerous in their own respect. Of course places like Venezula (there's a revolution going on there you know!!) Iraq and Israel are all politically unstable and the threat of terrorist attacs are likely but surprisingly if you check out the FCO's list of absolute no go areas, where there is zero chance of support from your emmbassy, there are actually only two countries, one of which was mentioned on the list, Somalia, and the second, being the Ivory coast wasn't. I think they are two places I can firmly say that I'm glad not to be anywhere near!!

has anyone thought of serbia
the slavs and serbs have been killing each other for years there
as a serb I would say thats the most dangerous country :mp5:

It's a pretty ambiguous question. How do you determine danger, and for who? Loads of countries are dangerous in their own respect. Of course places like Venezula (there's a revolution going on there you know!!) Iraq and Israel are all politically unstable and the threat of terrorist attacs are likely but surprisingly if you check out the FCO's list of absolute no go areas, where there is zero chance of support from your emmbassy, there are actually only two countries, one of which was mentioned on the list, Somalia, and the second, being the Ivory coast wasn't. I think they are two places I can firmly say that I'm glad not to be anywhere near!!

The revolution in Venezuela was relatively peaceful and it ended with the democratic election that brought Hugo Chavez to power.

With regards to the most dangerous country in the world most statistics, government warnings and travel agents will point to Colombia. However I have lived in Colombia, I have friends and family who live in Colombia and not one has died violently.

My choice would be North Korea. You *know* a nation is in bad shape when they start fleeing to a pesthole like the PRC for relative safety. ^_^;

Zimbabwe is not at all a bad 2nd choice for most dangerous nation to live in. Mugubwe is going the way of Idi Amin and Pol Pot.

Israel and Iraq by way of contrast are places I'd have no problem living in at all. Both are run by decent governments rather than by tyrants. :)

funny choice of countrys.

why is North-Korea, India, USA, France, UK, China and Rushia not on the list beeing that they are the countrys obviously with the nukes around?

I would vote:

USA (for its agression, be it wrong or right but none the less provoking)
China (for its obvious insecurity and little brother complex)
North Korea ( for beeing stupid enough to stand up to thees other two and going against the UNs recomedations as do both china and usa )

has anyone thought of serbia
the slavs and serbs have been killing each other for years there
as a serb I would say thats the most dangerous country :mp5:



!!! A Serb!!! For the Slavic Peoples!!!! *tackles you*

funny choice of countrys.

why is North-Korea, India, USA, France, UK, China and Rushia not on the list beeing that they are the countrys obviously with the nukes around?

I would vote:

USA (for its agression, be it wrong or right but none the less provoking)
China (for its obvious insecurity and little brother complex)
North Korea ( for beeing stupid enough to stand up to thees other two and going against the UNs recomedations as do both china and usa )



Because nukes are a deterrent to invasion. The US may have a pretty high crime rate (I blame the rehabilitationists :D ), but at least we are safe from invasion.

funny choice of countrys.

why is North-Korea, India, USA, France, UK, China and Rushia not on the list beeing that they are the countrys obviously with the nukes around?

I would vote:

USA (for its agression, be it wrong or right but none the less provoking)
China (for its obvious insecurity and little brother complex)
North Korea ( for beeing stupid enough to stand up to thees other two and going against the UNs recomedations as do both china and usa )


well for one france , is not bad place to live and either is russia or uk, and
and North Korea ( is not stupid it have big balls, fair play to stand up against those two Hypocrites).

Because nukes are a deterrent to invasion. The US may have a pretty high crime rate (I blame the rehabilitationists :D ), but at least we are safe from invasion.

Blame the prohibitionists. Legalize drugs and your prison population will drop by 50%.

I think he ment most dangerous to be in if you were there. Therefore France, USA are not logical choices as they are not as dangerous as 3rd world countries by far and their supposed danger is well overblown. Except for southern france and Gary Indiana respectively. In fact the murder rate for the United States per 1000 people isnt even in the top 60 for the world that is how overblown the crime myth is, usually prepetuated by the media and Europe.

The top 3 that keep statistics are per 1000 people
Columbia
Jamacia
Russia

Iraq cant be on the list because it is a war zone and thereby disqualifed.

One that should be on there is Karachi, Pakistan or if you are a white female wearing an american pride shirt and not a pool tarp in Mecca, Saudi Arabia another could be being a Christian in San Fransico, a democrat in Kansas or utah, or a Republican in Chicago or california.

but my vote goes for Somolia

You are talking about a "country" that has had no real government for almost 12 years now. Somolia is the perfect example of what Anarchy is and what happens, which is why Anarchists are retards. The country is basicly owned by warlords and gangs that constanty do battle with each other, and anybody else that enters their territory is killed outright. Food Aid couldnt get in, people cant get out, and since there is no government nor is the UN or US willing to help anymore nobody is counting the bodies or even knows what the hell goes on in there anymore.

I would honestly say that it is a toss up between South Korea, Russia and (I knowi'm gonna upset some people with this) the USA, because:

A) South Korea have already openly addmitted to a nuclear weapons program and have no intention to disarm them although pushed from America and Britian to do so. They have also said that they would readily use them if provoked. (Wich to me shows no humanity to the rest of the world)

B) Russia are now one of the true super powers in the world, having such a huge population equals a big army. They have a strong communist beliefs, and already threated a lot of people (including the USA) with their firepower (e.g. the cuban missile crisis)

C) (Here's where I'm gonna upset people) And finally, I'm sorry but having a country and an army that size is all well and good, but when you've got a guy who intent on warmongering somthings gonna go wrong. To sum it up, America along with it's little lap dog Britain (and yes i am English) could take over any part of the world without breaking into a sweat......period. All it takes is a country that doesn't agree with the capolist ideals, and they are quickly labelled a threat to democracy. :sniper:

Iraq cant be on the list because it is a war zone and thereby disqualifed.
The US leadership says different....

The US leadership says different....

they are delusional, and everybody agrees to that point even people that are for the war to begin with. Though as bad as it sounds 5-6 car bombs isnt really a high intensity war, and really the attacks do negligible effects on the US military, they are openingly attacking the police or recuriting areas more often

Of the countries mentioned, I'll go with the Congo.

Of those not mentioned, Iraq. It's become quite the little hell hole during the occupation.

Of the countries mentioned, I'll go with the Congo.

Of those not mentioned, Iraq. It's become quite the little hell hole during the occupation.

Actually if you talk to an iraqi it is about the same as before, just the killings are not a secret hidden by the state anymore but the fear of randomly being off'ed is the same. but it isnt as bad as its being blown out to be. 5-6 car bombs a day makes great TV news and morale hits, but it has almost zero effect militarily.

Blame the prohibitionists. Legalize drugs and your prison population will drop by 50%.



As would legalizing murder and rape ;)

I would honestly say that it is a toss up between South Korea, Russia and (I knowi'm gonna upset some people with this) the USA, because:

A) South Korea have already openly addmitted to a nuclear weapons program and have no intention to disarm them although pushed from America and Britian to do so. They have also said that they would readily use them if provoked. (Wich to me shows no humanity to the rest of the world)

B) Russia are now one of the true super powers in the world, having such a huge population equals a big army. They have a strong communist beliefs, and already threated a lot of people (including the USA) with their firepower (e.g. the cuban missile crisis)

C) (Here's where I'm gonna upset people) And finally, I'm sorry but having a country and an army that size is all well and good, but when you've got a guy who intent on warmongering somthings gonna go wrong. To sum it up, America along with it's little lap dog Britain (and yes i am English) could take over any part of the world without breaking into a sweat......period. All it takes is a country that doesn't agree with the capolist ideals, and they are quickly labelled a threat to democracy. :sniper:



Cool, how did you travel back in time to the 60's? I wanna go there too!

Actually if you talk to an iraqi it is about the same as before, just the killings are not a secret hidden by the state anymore but the fear of randomly being off'ed is the same. but it isnt as bad as its being blown out to be. 5-6 car bombs a day makes great TV news and morale hits, but it has almost zero effect militarily.

Yes, the anarchy, lawlessness, crime and corruption (http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/irq-summary-eng) are so not worth mentioning... :rolleyes:

Yes, the anarchy, lawlessness, crime and corruption (http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/irq-summary-eng) are so not worth mentioning... :rolleyes:



Anarchy? Last time I checked, they had a government and a police force.

Blame the prohibitionists. Legalize drugs and your prison population will drop by 50%.

And then, of course, the number of shattered families, orphans, traffic accidents, violent assaults, number of people dependant on welfare, unemployment, and even the incidence of international wars would increase by a lot.

What an achievement!! :rolleyes:

Anarchy? Last time I checked, they had a government and a police force.

In the real world, you know, where actions speak louder than words, and the government and police are severely unable to fulfill their tasks, one has anarchy despite there being a formal, puppet government.

The by far most dangerous country to live in right now is Iraq under the Yank occupation, followed by Afghanistan under Yank occupation.

Third would probably be the province (not a country) of Kosovo under Yank occupation, and fourth the inner city ghetooes of the Yankistan (a.k.a the "Land of the Free" -- in Orwellian doublespeak, apparently; officially the USofA)

I think he ment most dangerous to be in if you were there. Therefore France, USA are not logical choices as they are not as dangerous as 3rd world countries by far and their supposed danger is well overblown. Except for southern france and Gary Indiana respectively. In fact the murder rate for the United States per 1000 people isnt even in the top 60 for the world that is how overblown the crime myth is, usually prepetuated by the media and Europe.

The top 3 that keep statistics are per 1000 people
Columbia
Jamacia
Russia

Iraq cant be on the list because it is a war zone and thereby disqualifed.

One that should be on there is Karachi, Pakistan or if you are a white female wearing an american pride shirt and not a pool tarp in Mecca, Saudi Arabia another could be being a Christian in San Fransico, a democrat in Kansas or utah, or a Republican in Chicago or california.

but my vote goes for Somolia

You are talking about a "country" that has had no real government for almost 12 years now. Somolia is the perfect example of what Anarchy is and what happens, which is why Anarchists are retards. The country is basicly owned by warlords and gangs that constanty do battle with each other, and anybody else that enters their territory is killed outright. Food Aid couldnt get in, people cant get out, and since there is no government nor is the UN or US willing to help anymore nobody is counting the bodies or even knows what the hell goes on in there anymore.

If Iraq is disqualified because it is a war zone, then why isn't Colombia? Or don't civil wars count?

P.S. Colombia is spelt Colombia.

As would legalizing murder and rape ;)

Do you equate drug abuse to murder and rape?

And then, of course, the number of shattered families, orphans, traffic accidents, violent assaults, number of people dependant on welfare, unemployment, and even the incidence of international wars would increase by a lot.

What an achievement!! :rolleyes:

Are you reffering to something that I wrote?