NationStates Jolt Archive

Taking terrorists out, what country would be the most dangerous threat to security in the world, provided that US never invaded Iraq, and that the UN will not jump in to intervene.

Well, the US, obviously. I cannot think of another country which has fought more wars since WW2.

Yeah good reasoning. I was thinking Australia...cus no one expects them...*shifty eyes*

Well it couldn't be the U.S.

The U.S. wouldn't attack someone just because they have resources the U.S. needs...um, okay, bad example.

Oh! How about because the U.S. isn't prone to attack another country because of contradicting political ideals....uh...okay, I'll try again.

Okay! Certainly not because the U.S. needs to justify their massive millitary budget....ah....fuck...

I'm just gonna shut up now...

Well I don't really see any nation capable of threatening the world. Maybe a region, perhaps. I am NOT going to say America because I find that offensive. Since when did America become some evil Empire? It plays politics and tries to swing things in its favor. Any superpower does that. The Soviet Union, The British Empire, China will start it up pretty soon.

I say if we left things alone, things would sort themselves out... Israel and Palestine would kill eachother off, Europe would continue on with itself... until Germany rebuilt their military and tried a third bid for dominance, Asia would make a crapload of money, the third world would starve and die out (leaving prime vacation spots open for the world powers.) Yep, life would be good. America would eventually work themselves into a shadow war that results in the formation of a new superpower that would destroy America.

Iran, North Korea, Russia, or China.

Too early to tell. The rise of China could have been, and may still be the biggest threat. They themselves may not be a threat now, but they are getting very powerful very quickly. They've started competing for resources, and in the future, it may not be as polite as it has been. The scariest part, however, is if that power immediately collapses do to political instability, which may happen.
The other was Islamic extremism, the anti-liberal ideaology that not only fuelled terrorism, but was posoining societies everywhere. One way or another, it'd affect us all. Especially in much of Europe it'd be a problem, where Islam is more widespread. I'm not bashing the religion, but one must consider how many David Koresh's there are in Shintoist Japan.

Woohoo!!!!!

More predictable thread outcomes. Hmm. . . I wonder if the creator of this thread wanted everyone to say the US. Hmm. . .i t's so crazy it might just be true!!!!!

Wouldn't all foreign aid pouring out of the US stop if there's no more US? After all, how many nations thought of sending massive aircraft carriers that are more like mini-cities under airports, to disaster areas? Who else would have stopped the Japanese military from taking over SE Asia without Japan going Soviet? The biggest threats are N. Korea(why do they need nukes so bad?) and Iran(openly extremist.). Meanwhile, the UN is getting dependant on US dollars. I say North America, nay, the Americas join to form one huge isolationist nation. The UK, South Korea, Isreal, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Japan can join if they want. No one else. You guys are mean. They US gives you money and you hate the US in return.

They US gives you money and you hate the US in return.
The US borrows its money from the rest of the world, largely SE Asia when they buy its treasuries.

EDIT: And I'm sure the EU will find a way to scrape a living without US handouts.

Woohoo!!!!!

More predictable thread outcomes. Hmm. . . I wonder if the creator of this thread wanted everyone to say the US. Hmm. . .i t's so crazy it might just be true!!!!!

No, I wasn't hoping to start another US Bashfest...it's got enough of it as it is. I was actually wondering what people thought would be the biggest threat to international security. So ya.

The US borrows its money from the rest of the world, largely SE Asia when they buy its treasuries.

Actually, mostly China and Japan. Not that I see that necessarily as a bad thing for the US. The dollar, after all, is in high demand there.

It has to be the US, not because its an evil country, just because it has the power, and it allready committed (economicaly, militeraly, and politicaly) all over the world, my ancesters wuld have been the biggest threat at the height of the British Empire, France at the time of Napoleon, perhaps the Spanish before that. Allways the most powerfull nation is the biggest threat.

I think the post war (WWII) era bears out those of us who chose the US, I don't know about number of wars (mayme theres a country with more), but the US has engaged in wars, and proxy wars all over the world, they have bankroled and supported coups, and affected change in many peaceful ways. Stability is, after all, not allways a good thing, though I don't justify the war, stability in turn of the century Iraq was not a good thing, the instability of today is not a good thing either, make your on judgement on which is best.

Well I don't really see any nation capable of threatening the world. Maybe a region, perhaps. I am NOT going to say America because I find that offensive. Since when did America become some evil Empire? It plays politics and tries to swing things in its favor. Any superpower does that. The Soviet Union, The British Empire, China will start it up pretty soon.

Good choices!. So you say the USA are equal to them...

I'm glad to meet you. Finally, somebody realizes of it. :D

Most African Countries - not through their strength but through being weak, exidus of population, AIDS being spread far and wide, criminality.

Since when did America become some evil Empire? It plays politics and tries to swing things in its favor. Any superpower does that. The Soviet Union, The British Empire, China will start it up pretty soon.

only, the Soviet Union is no longer a superpower, the British Empire is no longer an empire, and China still needs some work before it can become a superpower, even if it may be on the right track.

This leaves only the US with both the will and the means to bring armed interventions in other countries whithout a request from someone else (the UN, another bigger country, something like that)

Europe would continue on with itself... until Germany rebuilt their military and tried a third bid for dominance

I believe that Germany has understood that if they want to dominate Europe their chance is not in weapons, but in economy and EU politics, and would try that way.

I guess... Maybe the americans think that Europe is still a continent full of rivalities??

Although in the Balkans took place a war little time ago, the peoples are working on end with those differences. And if you travel anywhere in Europe, you'll see that there's no rivalry between Spain and France, Germany and England, Portugal and Poland, Denmark and Italy...

A war on Europe is IMPOSSIBLE, and I'm proud of it. :gundge:
:)

Sorry to interupt but the obvious answer is'nt the US but the UN. Most ofthe Us military actions since WWII were sanctioned and even encouracged by the UN. And the UN has sanctioned and encouraged other military actions that the US was not involved in (rare but it happens apparently the great French military feels competant tohandle tiny thirs worls African nations as long as they have a dozen allies to help out). So there's teh great threat to world peace. Kofi yoou facist! grrrrr

The UN is not a problem. The dictatorships and Israel (mainly), and everybody overlooks their decisions when it doesn't fit their interests.

AIDS is the threat

One thing is certain: It´s not Sweden. We haven´t been at war for about 200 years (longer than Switzerland!), the last being in 1814 (Switzerlands was in 1847, a civil war).
Then again, we have constructed the first completely stealthed ship in the world (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/visby.htm). So if we were to go to war, we could do it secretly.