Use of nuclear weapons more likely in future: US intelligence

Use of nuclear weapons more likely in future: US intelligence

news.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The use of nuclear weapons will grow increasingly likely by 2025, according to a bleak US intelligence report that warns that US global dominance is likely to weaken over the next two decades.

(visit the link for the full news article)

That's a scary thought. We are being a bit hasty though aren't we. Just because the US is dwindling in power doesn't mean the world will implode upon itself. It seems that Japan, Korea and China will increase their dominance in the world and likely be the new superpowers. With that will come their arsenal of nuclear missiles.

O' dear how can the world survive without America policing it?[/sarcasm]



news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Briefly reading that report, it looks like the focus is now slowly being drawn away from 'Al-Qaeda'. ?Now we should be scared of Iran becoming the catalyst of further nuclear development in the middle east...who needs taking over next?

Sounds like some sort of an attempt to get the world ask the States back for one more conquering love affair.

Yeah, its a dim future we are facing. Criminal syndicates will gain power, nations will vanish, wars over water, nuclear weapons in wrong hands. It looks like the future superpowers will be the corporations. Imagine the mafia and Yakuza in a cold war

I agree that America losing dominance does not mean that Nuclear threats increase.

This is a massive leap in assumption.

The reason the USA will lose dominance I think is due to the financial systems that have been in place for the last few decades. The entire world has come to realize that all those anti-globalization protesters were right about at least one thing; the complex web of financial interaction was unstable.

The USA has its fingers in every nation on Earth, and we could all benefit from losing a few of these economic giants from our back yard. They've quashed independent competition in local markets and trading, acted with relative disregard for regional workforces and funneled profits out of host nations and into American coffers.

As it was discussed in the $25m bailout for the car manufacturers, this is an issue even for America. You could use those jobs in the states, rather than shipping the factories overseas to increase profit while limiting workers welfare and rights.
You do have the argument that these nations will lose jobs, but under any financial system you have those who prosper and those who don't. It is a matter of each nation discovering what it is they can offer internationally and that government working with the people to create a industry around this.

Bringing the word "Nuclear" into this is just a way of sensationalizing the story. Sure the intelligence agencies will be worried about the loss of dominance, but the international community already works damn hard to monitor Nuclear weaponry, it's not a solely American issue, it is a global one with numerous nations being involved and numerous bodies overseeing it.

This is just the American Defense community putting its spin on an issue that is predominantly economic, and not military, in my humble opinion of course.

The missile defence shield recently negotiated with poland was a real eye opener, then the georgia/russian thing happend.. what a suprise !
By 2012 the US plan to have in place-
A Strategic Nuclear program ?... don't they have that now ?
Hears the link www.defenselink.mil...
People might not realise this but we are back in the arms race !

noncorporeal

There's some great spin here.

This is really about that the use of nuclear weapons being used on America is more likely in the future. America is getting less and less able to dictate who can have these kinds of weapons and who can't - a bit rich considering they're the only country that's actually used them against anyone else in the first place - and was quite happy to have them pointed against their own enemies.

Now, other countries, and not just Ivan, have them and might have them pointed towards America too and it's the end of the #ing world - apparently. What's the difference from when America points them at other countries? Because it's America? That doesn't work any more.

That feeling of uncertainty? Get used to it. The rest of us have had to live with it for years.

[edit on 21-11-2008 by Merriman Weir]

Originally posted by Waldy
Yeah, its a dim future we are facing. Criminal syndicates will gain power, nations will vanish, wars over water, nuclear weapons in wrong hands. It looks like the future superpowers will be the corporations. Imagine the mafia and Yakuza in a cold war

If you keep thinking like this you will do yourself damage..

Nothing is going to change much, the EU commission seem to have spotted this coming years ago and are after building up serious relations with a number of the larger powers to get a larger economic and security partnership going.

It looks like the EU, US, Northern africa and to a lesser extent, Russia are going to be on the same side as part of a larger open economic community. This, as the EU has shown, is the only non threatening way to stave off war between countries and nationalities that are paranoid of each other.

This is more than likely US propaganda to keep their citizens scared.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
That feeling of uncertainty? Get used to it. The rest of us have had to live with it for years.

Yes, and it was usually uncertainty about which country the US was going to invade or demonize next

Growing up next to major US targets gives me a clue as to the sense of nuclear uncertainty You two are talking about. We need to first reinvigorate nuclear disarmament and adopt a non imperialist/ non confrontational attitude in dealing with other nations rather than projecting the Wests version of Ahmadinejad.

What do you mean by "future use" of nukes lol. I believe that tactical nukes were used in Tora Bora Afghanistan in 2001 / 2002. If you check it out, there were like some 8 or 9 small "earthquakes" in that area during this time, hmmm. Also, in my opinion, Bush and Putin agreed to let the US use tactical nukes in Afghanistan so that Putin could have a free hand in Chechnya.

I have a hard time believing anything the US intelligence community says. Of course they are going to play up the threat of nuclear war, they are supposed to the the great "protectors" and they get more funding if they say "ooooh. The boogey man is gonna nuke you."

Please, And Warren Buffet and others trumpeted that the US would experience nuclear terrorism in 5 years and that was *drum roll* six years ago! This is just fear mongering bull.

The real dangers to this country are coming from within. At no time since the antebellum period has the US been closer to outright civil war and revolution. I fear Balkinization and civil war far worse than the nuke scenario.

Look around, the economy is finished, people are starting to get angry, and once they get hungry, oh boy! And his worship Obama isn't going to change the path this country has been on since 1968.

Compare the 30 years before the Civil War to the last 30 years and they are very similar paths.

Hold on this roller coaster has no brakes.

reply to post by Merriman Weir


Great post. I agree that most of us now live our lives in some sort of degree of perpetual fear.



-Ign0RanT

Do you people even know what the US does. The US is what holds this world together. We give so much out in aid and protection. Instead of bashing the US how about you open up a book of what we have actually done. Stop trying to prove that your right.