|
| Thread: Worldwide survey: Who do you see as the biggest threat to world peace? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted March 31, 2015 02:32 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 18:35, 31 Mar 2015.
|
I think early years of the Cold War is a very different historical context, but yes, it was like that then. Actually, we probably all owe our life to this guy. Had he been from the other side, he was a celebrity with a dozen biopics by now.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 31, 2015 07:53 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 19:54, 31 Mar 2015.
|
The second "chance" for nuclear war that I'm talking about was during the 80s, although it's far less famous than the Cuban crisis. Here's something about it.
The only thing which has changed since these times is the direct justification for a nuclear strike. Such conditions currently don't exist. Everything else is in place - the weapons, the willingness to use them in a dire situation (neither the US, nor Russia have abandoned their nucler war doctrines, just updated them, especially recently) and the fear that a potentially hostile state can launch an attack first. The latter is the main reason why nuclear weapons still exist in the first place. I.e. the means are here and are not going anywhere, only the situation needs to change. That's not to say that it will definitely change to something that bad in foreseeable future but the possibility for that does exist and it is not unrealistic.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 31, 2015 09:07 PM |
|
|
I still think "the willingness to use them in a dire situation" is mostly on paper, it's a bluff on both sides. Even the military officers with the most kick-ass mentality would have the common sense to realize that the magnitude of a nuclear war between two great powers is destructive beyond any worthy cause and the result would be a Pyrrhic victory of the worst kind.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted March 31, 2015 09:47 PM |
|
|
|
Things like that are unlikely to be taken into account in an actual high tension situation where there are serious suspicions that the opposite side is preparing to strike. The nuclear war doctrines, their total war versions at least, literally accept enormous casualties on both sides, even on global scale, and more or less maintain that as long as the enemy is hit harder, the results are acceptable. Think of it this way: You are in a war room, your generals tell you that X% of the enemy's silos are ready to launch their missiles at any moment and strategic bombers are in the air, heading for your/your allies' territory, a number of nuclear subs are confirmed to be preparing their payload as well. The political leadership of the hostile nuclear power tells you that if you don't do whatever (which may include putting down your own weapon systems which will also be on high alert at that time for sure), you're going back to the Stone age. You obviously can't respond with "I want my momma" and the majority of the military stars in the room urge you to give the order for preemptive strike, telling you that if you hit these and these and these silos, planes, submarines, and taken into account that you probably don't know about another up to Y% of the enemy nukes, some Z millions can be expected to be die on your side but there is a very good chance that the enemy will be crippled enough to save the lives of another Z+ millions which would otherwise perish if the enemy strikes first. Would you certainly consider that the opposing side is composed of bluffing rationalists who will not dare to start a global holocaust and do nothing?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 31, 2015 10:32 PM |
|
|
Yes.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted April 01, 2015 01:41 AM |
|
|
In the only standoff that we know of Castro did say strike. So rationalization is not automatic. Watch the Doc "Fog of War" it has the 13 days of the Cuban-missle-crisis. Macnamera says "we were lucky" 3 times.
But, I think its an accident perceived as intent that's the biggest threat now.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 01, 2015 02:08 AM |
|
|
As I said, the early years of Cold War is a little different, both sides demonize each other excessively with McCarthism on one side and a totally closed-in Russia on the other. World is not like that now and there has been a very strong tradition of anti-nuclear propaganda since mid 60's, where as it was something new and people were off-guard, anxious and jumpy about it before. There was these bombs that JUST did go off in Japan, so it was like, "who's to say not one more time?"
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 01, 2015 07:42 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 07:57, 01 Apr 2015.
|
OK, let's clone you several times and put you in charge of the nuclear countries, just in case. Because I don't believe that their leaders will act like you in such a situation, at least not all of them and not under any circumstances.
Quote:
In the only standoff that we know of Castro did say strike.
He did, but he's certainly not the only leader who asked for something like that. The democratic icon Churchill also asked for a strike against the USSR, even without a direct provocation. Before the worsening of the Soviet-Chinese relationships, Mao favoured a Soviet nuclear strike against the US and the "imperialists", arguing that the aftermath will allow for a complete victory over the capitalism. There are probably many more that we don't know of, because of secrecy or whatever.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted April 01, 2015 11:53 AM |
|
|
artu said:
As I said, the early years of Cold War is a little different, both sides demonize each other excessively with McCarthism on one side and a totally closed-in Russia on the other. World is not like that now and there has been a very strong tradition of anti-nuclear propaganda since mid 60's, where as it was something new and people were off-guard, anxious and jumpy about it before. There was these bombs that JUST did go off in Japan, so it was like, "who's to say not one more time?"
I hope you are correct but I don't think so. To me there is a lot of twisted logic inside running a nation's security these days and I doubt it's any better than it ever has been.
We may not have the obvious clash, but, in a sense, there are even worse that have developed. About the only way that this could not be true, is if all nations' elite play a well coordinated global fear game just to keep playing war games and supporting armament corporations...of which I have sometimes wondered btw.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 01, 2015 04:18 PM |
|
|
like in 1984 
anyway supporting war is supporting economy. especially for USA. but the whole economy rely on USA.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted April 01, 2015 09:07 PM |
|
|
True Fauch.
Wish they'd focus on Life...for the rest of their lives. 
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted April 04, 2015 09:25 AM |
|
|
@Zeno:
When you're dealing with a totally new dimension, it normally takes (at least) a generation for it to sink in.
There are rudimentary, long-standing aspects to war & politics that have been around for ages, such as divide and conquer. It has been a truth since organized tribes first started regularly communicating with each other that in order to be successful in annexing territory or gaining power, you don't go up against a united front. You provoke, in whatever way you can, inner fighting. Bribery is another long-standing principle. You could bribe your subordinates with the allure of acquiring wealth, land, women, and labor.
Planetary annihilation is relatively new. When savages such as Alexander or Napoleon were ravaging the world, there was no talk of the entire ecosystem being annihilated. Sure, there might be mass casualties, but in the end there would be a victor and there would be a loser, and life would continue, except under new leadership. In the 1950s, you abruptly had military & political leaders - who in their youth were educated in the First World War era - trying to tackle the fact that they possessed technology that can destroy the world. That's a pretty huge paradigm shift and it was bound to be a rocky ride for a few decades.
Human government is inherently extremely biased towards rationality. The universe is such that the rational always eventually prevails over the chaotic, because the chaotic has no methodology or way of sustaining itself. The more time goes by, the more intricate and structured human society is going to become to try to prevent unhappy scenarios.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 06, 2015 04:54 PM |
|
|
Upon request, thread moved to OSM from VW
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
ShadowMaster
Adventuring Hero
HOMM3fan
|
|
posted April 11, 2015 09:14 AM |
|
|
The biggest treat are, without a doubt, the Russian President. If they don not change him soon, the whole world while ber blown to smitherees.
____________
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted April 13, 2015 09:29 PM |
|
|
Corribus said:
Upon request, thread moved to OSM from VW
*looks at Artu*
____________
|
|
AnkVaati
Famous Hero
Nighonese National Front
|
|
posted June 09, 2015 06:43 PM |
|
Edited by AnkVaati at 18:44, 09 Jun 2015.
|
ShadowMaster said:
The biggest treat are, without a doubt, the Russian President. If they don not change him soon, the whole world while ber blown to smitherees.
I agree.
However, the biggest threat to world peace in this may still be the US in a sense, but not in the sense most people think.
The biggest threat to peace the world faces is lack of action from the American government's behalf, not the opposite. Lack of US support for the Free Syrian Army meant that jihadis were the only ones there to protect the Syrian people when Assad killed them with illegal barrel bombs and chlorine gas. Lack of US intervention made Maliki stay in power in Iraq for a long time despite losing the election, and continue his sectarian anti-sunni policies. Lack of US intervention has meant that Iranian-backed shia militias, who commit horrendous crimes towards sunnis, now form a considerable force of the anti-IS coalition in Iraq. All these things gave rise to what is today known as the Islamic State (IS). Lack of US intervention also gave Putin a free ticket to roll over young democracies in the former eastern bloc by using ethnic minorities to create puppet separatist regimes. The next ones may very well be EU-members Latvia or Lithuania. Lack of US intervention has given Iran a free ticket to continue its quest for regional supremacy and destruction of Israel. And so on.
Had McCain been elected president instead of Obama back 2008, the US would be much less of a threat to world peace. And so many thousands of people who died because of a couple of dictator's ambitions would still have been with us today.
So in a sense, these many countries who see the US as a threat to world peace are right, but perhaps not in the way most people thing about it.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 09, 2015 07:08 PM |
|
|
|
so if I follow your reasoning, most countries are threats to world peace because they stay quietly at their place instead of medling into other countries' affairs?
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted June 09, 2015 07:26 PM |
|
|
AnkVaati said:
ShadowMaster said:
The biggest treat are, without a doubt, the Russian President. If they don not change him soon, the whole world while ber blown to smitherees.
I agree.
However, the biggest threat to world peace in this may still be the US in a sense, but not in the sense most people think.
The biggest threat to peace the world faces is lack of action from the American government's behalf, not the opposite. Lack of US support for the Free Syrian Army meant that jihadis were the only ones there to protect the Syrian people when Assad killed them with illegal barrel bombs and chlorine gas. Lack of US intervention made Maliki stay in power in Iraq for a long time despite losing the election, and continue his sectarian anti-sunni policies. Lack of US intervention has meant that Iranian-backed shia militias, who commit horrendous crimes towards sunnis, now form a considerable force of the anti-IS coalition in Iraq. All these things gave rise to what is today known as the Islamic State (IS). Lack of US intervention also gave Putin a free ticket to roll over young democracies in the former eastern bloc by using ethnic minorities to create puppet separatist regimes. The next ones may very well be EU-members Latvia or Lithuania. Lack of US intervention has given Iran a free ticket to continue its quest for regional supremacy and destruction of Israel. And so on.
Had McCain been elected president instead of Obama back 2008, the US would be much less of a threat to world peace. And so many thousands of people who died because of a couple of dictator's ambitions would still have been with us today.
So in a sense, these many countries who see the US as a threat to world peace are right, but perhaps not in the way most people thing about it.
You really believe that the US is some omnipotent super-policeman that protects the world from evil, don't you?
(Elodin, are you back with us, righteous child?)
|
|
AnkVaati
Famous Hero
Nighonese National Front
|
|
posted June 09, 2015 09:50 PM |
|
Edited by AnkVaati at 21:52, 09 Jun 2015.
|
Fauch said:
so if I follow your reasoning, most countries are threats to world peace because they stay quietly at their place instead of medling into other countries' affairs?
Zenofex said:
You really believe that the US is some omnipotent super-policeman that protects the world from evil, don't you?
(Elodin, are you back with us, righteous child?)
The US cannot really be compared to any country, as it is the world's only hyperpower and spends more money on its military than all the other countries combined. But of course the entire free world and its allies has a responsibility towards world peace, not just the US, and even though human rights are universal, we cannot expect everyone to embrace western values everywhere. For instance, John McCain said in this very insightful interview that the best solution for Syria would probably be a coalition of western-friendly Muslim countries intervening on the side of the FSA/YPG, rather than direct US involvement on the ground, as those have an easier time being accepted by the local population.
I'm probably what would be described as a compassionate conservative in US political terms, and there are many things in America one can and should be critical about. That doesn't take away the fact that it has certain responsibilities as the no. 1 world power. Russia, Iran and the others won't stop with their "interventionism" even if the US does.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 09, 2015 10:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The US cannot really be compared to any country
Well, it can. And results are not very bright. Many industrialized countries have cultures that place far greater value on life, family, relationships, while American culture has ripped much of the soul out of its people with a culture that values status, pride, and material gain; all with minimal regard for how the pursuit of such things affect others.
Many countries have far better political systems while that in the US is puppeteered by an elite few hyper-rich plutocrats.
Then there is a reason Americans have the highest per-capita encarceration rate; usage of illicit drugs; usage of psychoactive prescription drugs; mental illness rates; lifestyle-illness (obesity, diabetes, etc.), etc. of the industrialized world. That reason is the totality of what is ill in its culture, mindset, worldview, society, economic structure, social structure, and politics.
Ok let's forget all I said. Indeed US has the most up to date army. Yehaa.
|
| |
|
|
