ATS POLL: Which Country Represents the Biggest Threat to Humanity?

a reply to: intrepid


Yes sir will do. I did not initiate the topic.

a reply to: sosobad

Dude, regardless of our mindsets agreeing, disagreeing, hate love and anything in between....you are one of the most aggressive and volatile people I have ever seen on here.

You and one other poster are always hounding members and making huge dramatic productions on this site over subjects like this.

Its not the stance on issues you support that defines this deficiency, and it is, its how you think people are your enemy. You dont have a role as a "Nemesis" of sorts. You make your own enemies.

How about you realize this is an informal poll on a conspiracy site. The fact is if half the junk you think was true the world would be neck deep in world war.

Maybe the truth is somewhere in between where you stand and the polar opposite you think people represent.

You arent sticking it to the man. You are being less than cool with average people.

double.

a reply to: peck420

I wish I still shared your optimism. I personally believe that we entered a new era when Whahabism became a "thing." When you're dealing with people who believe their reason for living is to die a martyr, all bets are off the table. I'm not suggesting the US, Russia, Israel, or China fit that bill, because they certainly don't... but let's say a Saudi Arabia suddenly started amassing high yield nukes, now you'd have the potential for a Mullah with a death fetish to one day take control and MAD suddenly becomes a possibility.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
...and this differs from the USA's Skynet-inspired Cray XC Trinity supercomputer failsafe, Russia's Dead Hand failsafe, and China's rumored High Altitude EMP weapon in what way? Hell, how does it differ from North Korea's almost certain edict that they launch nukes hilly-nilly should Dear Leader be brought to heel in an attack?

Russia and the US would likely only launch at those involved in the conflict, China too. All three of those nations would probably start by using the nuclear weapons on the invading army too rather than on unaffiliated civilians. Israel would nuke Jerusalem just so no one else could have it. Then again, I think we all know that nuclear weapons used on a military force will quickly escalate into nuking other nations cities.

I'm not attacking Israel here as being more vicious than the rest, rather I'm explaining why we have to continue to support them. It's the same reason China must support North Korea. Welcome to geopolitics.

a reply to: burdman30ott6
My optimism may stem from the fact that even is the world's largest theoretical nuclear weapon was launched at the city I am closest too, I would most likely survive...

However, there is a massive flaw to MAD. The flaw is that everybody who is not actively participating will actively participate once a nuclear weapon is deployed.

To continue your hypothetical scenario...let's say that Saudi Arabia goes overtly rogue, and launches. Who are they going to launch at? Well, they are going to attack their most dangerous enemies, which are all inside their regional area. Will USA, Russia, China, France, etc respond to that launch? Maybe, but probably not with more launches. The people that would respond would be those in the region, so Pakistan, India, Israel, etc. But, they are going to be launching back at Saudi Arabia.

At that point, would, for example (because they are directly in the region) Israel respond with the "Samson Option"? Probably not. By not doing so they can significantly increase the odds of Israelis (currently out of country) and Jews surviving the aftermath.

Same with Russia and China (potentially in the region), and definitely for the US and Western Europe.

Once a nuclear weapon is deployed, the questions are going to be, "are we the primary target?" Yes/No. If answer is no, prep for aftermath. If answer is yes, destroy aggressor. Either way, you end up with an at worst multiple nuclear exchange between the countries involved...leaving a lot of the rest of the world to survive and carry on...after erasing the original aggressor from history.

Like I said, it's a bluff. The only way it actually works is if all of the parties that are armed with nukes to protect themselves from each other, are designating targets together...which would mean that they don't need nuclear weapons for protection from one another.

a reply to: peck420

That depends on second strike capabilities. Lets say the US has a defense pact with Saudi Arabia. By treaty we need to launch if nukes come flying at them, even if the Saudi's started it. Now the US could stand down in this situation, the Saudi's won't be able to do anything about it because they'll be dead. If the Saudi's have second strike capability though they could see that the US didn't retaliate and attack the US with what remains.

a reply to: Aazadan
That is still stuck at multiple exchanges between a very limited number of countries, leaving a very large percent of the world intact.

MAD is nothing more than a ruse designed by those with nuclear weapons to control those without. We don't want any minor powers to 'meddle' lest they set off the MAD of the major powers and destroy us all...hopefully, without realizing that the only way the major powers MAD can 'destroy us all' is if they are working together.

This is BS.. the threat to world peace clearly
comes from Putin and his Aggression towards his neighbours.

How the United States comes out on top in this poll
is a clear indication of how infested we have become
with agents of Putin and general haters of the US.

a reply to: Aazadan

That depends on second strike capabilities. Lets say the US has a defense pact with Saudi Arabia. By treaty we need to launch if nukes come flying at them, even if the Saudi's started it. Now the US could stand down in this situation, the Saudi's won't be able to do anything about it because they'll be dead. If the Saudi's have second strike capability though they could see that the US didn't retaliate and attack the US with what remains.

All this talks about second strike, MAD, Samson option etc are applicable only for direct USA-Russia conflict. I doubt that China can compare with the big two, may be in 5-10 years. As for Israel, Samson option is certainly a bluff. At most they can nuke countries in the Middle East and themselves. Israel doesn't have ICBMs, very outdated american bombers and 4-5 german made small subs. And no extensive space programs, just 3-4 small satellites. No nuclear tests at all.
In a real world only USA could develop 3 ways of delivering nukes. USSR got bankrupted and Russia will bankrupt again if it will go again the scenario of First Cold War. China potentially could become almost equal to USA if nothing changes in the way how world economics work. It is laughable to compare Israel with USA, Russia and China. Well, even Russia parity is not sustainable, that is why they also feel threatened.

originally posted by: rigel4
This is BS.. the threat to world peace clearly
comes from Putin and his Aggression towards his neighbours.

How the United States comes out on top in this poll
is a clear indication of how infested we have become
with agents of Putin and general haters of the US.

Refresh my memory here for a second....who's congress was attempting to derail peace talks before they even started putting pen to paper?

There is a reason the US tops the list. A big part of it is the willingness of US politicians to put partisan BS far ahead of anything else.

to intrepid and crazyewok:

Those are the very, exact reasons that I think they are the ticking time-bomb.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: rigel4
This is BS.. the threat to world peace clearly
comes from Putin and his Aggression towards his neighbours.

How the United States comes out on top in this poll
is a clear indication of how infested we have become
with agents of Putin and general haters of the US.

Refresh my memory here for a second....who's congress was attempting to derail peace talks before they even started putting pen to paper?

There is a reason the US tops the list. A big part of it is the willingness of US politicians to put partisan BS far ahead of

anything else.

I seem to recall that it is the Kremlin and not the Whitehouse that recently
and on numerous occasions threatened the use of nuclear weapons .

Putin has threatened 1st strike use on any interference in Crimea.. were willing to use nukes
when they invaded Crimea with the "little green men", they have threatened Warsaw with nuclear weapons and more recently
Denmark.
Then there is the creeping invasion in Ukraine.. the aggressive behaviour towards the Baltic states...
need i continue..

Russia is the threat .... make no mistake.

originally posted by: rigel4

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: rigel4
This is BS.. the threat to world peace clearly
comes from Putin and his Aggression towards his neighbours.

How the United States comes out on top in this poll
is a clear indication of how infested we have become
with agents of Putin and general haters of the US.

Refresh my memory here for a second....who's congress was attempting to derail peace talks before they even started putting pen to paper?

There is a reason the US tops the list. A big part of it is the willingness of US politicians to put partisan BS far ahead of

anything else.

I seem to recall that it is the Kremlin and not the Whitehouse that recently
and on numerous occasions threatened the use of nuclear weapons .

Putin has threatened 1st strike use on any interference in Crimea.. were willing to use nukes
when they invaded Crimea with the "little green men", they have threatened Warsaw with nuclear weapons and more recently
Denmark.
Then there is the creeping invasion in Ukraine.. the aggressive behaviour towards the Baltic states...
need i continue..

Russia is the threat .... make no mistake.

Really? Iran via Israel. Iraq via BS. Afghanistan via didn't you get it when the Soviet Union couldn't tame that area? Viet Nam with France being the same. Libya. Do I need to go on?

It's simple math to figure out why the US is on top in this poll.

We have 300 million people (about 1/20 of the world's population).

An yet we spend ONE HALF of what the ENTIRE rest of the world spends
on weapons of war.

a reply to: rigel4
You recall poorly at best.

The only nuclear threat that actually came from the Kremlin, was a threat of being targeted.

The remainder come from non-government persons...and one from notes somebody may, or may not, have seen on another reporters note pad...credibility at it's finest here.

As for Denmark being targeted if they join NATO...isn't that what Russia and NATO do, target each other with stuff they will never use? Oh whoops, in your rant, you forgot to mention that our side likes to target them too.

CANADA? a THREAT! thanks for the laugh skeptic overlord. maybe they will kill everyone with kindness! and balloon animals! take cover!

originally posted by: JourneymanWelder
CANADA? a THREAT! thanks for the laugh skeptic overlord. maybe they will kill everyone with kindness! and balloon animals! take cover!

Pfffft. I voted Canada.

Major wars don't start themselves...and rarely do they start directly between major players.

Usually it is between minors, and treaties draw in the majors, or between a minor and a major.

Harper has already ran his mouth with an opposing major player...can he be the little bark that starts the bite? I don't know?, but he has been the most direct linguistic adversary from our side, so I pick him as the most likely.

-scratches tin foil hat- I think this site has been compromised in a MAJOR way lol.

hmm...
could not find the 'ctrl+a if you're on windows, cmd+a if you're on a mac' option )

___