JC Callender
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 6,477
- Reaction score
- 3,270
- Location
- Metro Detroit
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Here's a question: do you think that the world is a more dangerous place since the fall of the Soviet Union?
Neither.
That is quite trivial.
Possibly.
Yes it is.
It depends on diplomacy.
No. Like, a million times no.
The world has always been a dangerous place
The world is and has always been a dangerous place.
It is a bit hard to compare.
I would think not.
Here's a question: do you think that the world is a more dangerous place since the fall of the Soviet Union?
Oh Jeez...FAR safer.
The chances of nuclear war since the end of the Soviet Union are far, FAR less. And all other dangers pale in comparison to nuclear annihilation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock
Well considering the fact that people believed back then it was only a matter of time before a nuclear war that would eradicate humanity from the face of Earth I think it's pretty much safer now.
What about this:
As far as the danger after the collapse, I’m thinking of the release of pirates and rouge entities. The effects for instance of the Russian mafia, arms dealers and thieves, the possibility of transfer of material for dirty bombs, Russian mercenaries etc. Do you think that Putin has handle on all of these things, or are there some that have let loose? Iraqi generals created the ISIS machine. Are there Russians creating the same types of clandestine machines?
Here's a question: do you think that the world is a more dangerous place since the fall of the Soviet Union?
Your international policies do not change from president to president,we all know this fact
Nuclear materials are more easily obtained from Iran (a disunited country where the central power is more and more challenged by tribes) or Pakistan, where Talibans almost conquered areas with nuclear sites a few years ago.The effects for instance of the Russian mafia, arms dealers and thieves, the possibility of transfer of material for dirty bombs, Russian mercenaries etc. Do you think that Putin has handle on all of these things, or are there some that have let loose?
Humanity could not have been destroyed by an all-out global nuclear war (an implausible scenario btw). The nuclear winter would not be that severe that we could not adapt, and it would soften after a few years. Billions of humans would survive. Not our cattle.All of those things combined do not remotely add up to the total destruction of humanity...which was far riskier before the Soviet Union broke up.
Nuclear materials are more easily obtained from Iran (a disunited country where the central power is more and more challenged by tribes) or Pakistan, where Talibans almost conquered areas with nuclear sites a few years ago.
Humanity could not have been destroyed by an all-out global nuclear war (an implausible scenario btw). The nuclear winter would not be that severe that we could not adapt, and it would soften after a few years. Billions of humans would survive. Not our cattle.
However the USA and USSR would certainly become mostly no-man's land. But when it comes to my own country, France, our territory is small enough that a few Muslim nukes on Paris could kill a third to a half of the population and bring us to the dark ages for a century, with large parts of the country closed after this. And there is the Muslim demographic takeover in our large urban areas.
The USA are probably safer right now. France has never been so much endangered since the defeat against Nazis.
But watch for China: they are a nationalist people led by a government that is now embracing a domination agenda. And as soon as their growth will halt, and at some point it will, the only way for their dictatorship to maintain its grip over its people will be the threat of foreign enemies.
Assuming the worst case (all nukes fired), the total amount of nukes owned by mankind are known well enough, and the amount of ejected dust per explosion and its impact on atmosphere can be estimated by looking at volcanic explosions of similar magnitude.It is impossible to factually state that a nuclear war would not wipe out humanity.
They amount to a third of the youth in Paris' region and other large urban areas. Their numbers doubled over thirty years, in large parts thanks to immigration, and this accelerates.And as for 'Muslim demographic takeovers'? Nonsense.
Muslims and non-Muslims never manage to live together, unless one of them clearly dominate. Otherwise the result is a slaughter.One) far and away most Muslims are peaceful - so who cares (unless you are prejudiced).
No offense, but total nonsense.Assuming the worst case (all nukes fired), the total amount of nukes owned by mankind are known well enough, and the amount of ejected dust per explosion and its impact on atmosphere can be estimated by looking at volcanic explosions of similar magnitude.
There are debates but the modern studies on this topic all conclude to surmountable consequences. Billions would survive, maybe most of mankind.
Link to factual data, please.They amount to a third of the youth in Paris' region and other large urban areas. Their numbers doubled over thirty years, in large parts thanks to immigration, and this accelerates.
At this rate before the end of the century they will have took over our main urban areas by conservative estimations. The countryside will be spared, but it is not what matters the most.
At this rate by 2100 France will not be a Muslim country but Paris will be a Muslim city and France will be a new Nigeria, divided between Muslims and non-Muslims, plagued by hatred, distrust, conflicts, corruption and political instability.
France is being destroyed as we speak. This is real, forget the reassuring national averages (8%-11%) you read without factoring in the age composition, urban concentration, demographic growth and inertia.
Muslims and non-Muslims never manage to live together, unless one of them clearly dominate. Otherwise the result is a slaughter.
In general multiple identities always have a hard time coexisting together, unless one dominates or when they are united by a foreign threat. It was easier in the past because interactions were fewer (slower transportation and communication): two villages separated by 50km were two ends of the world. This is why we have seen a rise of ethnic cleansings in the modern age: there is a recreation of ethnic homogeneity everywhere.
Finally even if we could live together, a Muslim France would no longer be France. It would be yet another Muslim hell hole.
Here's a question: do you think that the world is a more dangerous place since the fall of the Soviet Union?
No, the scale of violence in the US and USSR's proxy wars is unmatched by anything today. But 700,000 brown people killed by communists in Ethiopia is a lot less scary than 130 white people killed in Paris.
What 700,000? 700,000 were displaced in African wars, but I don't know of anything on that scale there by Russians.
See this study for example. I engage you to look for additional studies if you want to.Where is your link to scientific evidence of this theory of yours?
No, the majority of the arsenal is made of W88 warheads that are about 50 times more powerful than Little Boy, but this only translates into a 3-4 bigger explosion radius (sphere volume is proportional to cubic radius). And Little Boy could only destroy the center of the little town of Hiroshima and its many wood houses (300k capita). You could raze Manhattan with a couple of them (towers may resist and limit deflagration), but the NYC conurbation would take a lot more than this.More than half of the world's population lives in cities. There are over 15,000 nuclear weapons. There are less than 3,000 cities. So with less than 20% of world nukes you would already take out more than half the population.
I can provide links in French, not in English, and in PM only (I got warned by moderators against posting French links).Link to factual data, please.
No, but this is irrelevant anyway.The VAST majority of Muslims are just as decent and accepting as anyone else.
Their politics are in a mess precisely because different social identities have to live together. And those social identities distrust each other and hate each other, which means the government is never legitimate because everyone think they serve the other group, ecause people indeed favor their own group. And this distrust then creates economic problems and conflicts.The only reasons so many Middle Eastern nations are a mess are politics and poverty...it's little/nothing to do with religion.
Are you serious? I have a life. Show me the fact-based conclusions please that prove that 'billions' of people would have survived an all out, worldwide, nuclear war in 1991?See this study for example. I engage you to look for additional studies if you want to.
The W88 is (I believe) only mounted on Trident II missiles. And the Trident II was not deployed until 1990. SO it is highly doubtful that the W88 would have been the number one nuclear warhead of America - let alone her Navy - at that time. Plus, the stockpile of nuclear warheads goes FAR beyond those that are available for immediate deployment.No, the majority of the arsenal is made of W88 warheads
Both Pakistan (early stages) and India had nuclear weapons in 1991 and both have been at war with each other several times in the last 50+ years. It is logical to assume these places would have been nuked.Second of all I fail to see why the USSR would have bombed Delhi, Amsterdam or Johannesburg. Strikes would have been focused on places with nuclear weapons.
That is utter nonsense.No, but this is irrelevant anyway. TO my statement 'The VAST majority of Muslims are just as decent and accepting as anyone else.'
* The nuclear winter envisioned by the article is not severe enough to kill billions of people.
Where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that a total, nuclear war in 1991 would leave 'billions' of people still alive?* The nuclear winter envisioned by the article is not severe enough to kill billions of people.
* The W87's power is similar to the W88. Incidentally I was talking about the present, not 1991, but it changes nothing to the conclusion.
It does not matter what they are now...the entire point of mine is based on nuclear war before 1991. And in 1988, there were apparently over 45,000 warheads.* The 15k warheads you mentioned are all warheads ever produced. Current stocks are below 10k, with less than half being deployed.
You are guessing again. But even if it took 20 to destroy the NYC area - there were easily enough warheads back in 1991 for that.* If by "destroying a city" you mean destroying a part of its centertown, you can of course. But eradicating every human being living in those large sprawling conurbations (city + suburbs) full of armed concrete structures would take a lot more than 5 nukes per city. Just for NYC without its suburbs you would need tens of them.
* You may "not care" about my demographic projections, this does not make them less correct: Paris, London and Berlin will be Muslim far before the end of this century at this rate. But of course there is no BBC article about it.
* There are studies about tolerance: out-group hostility among Muslims and Christians. Second-generation Muslims are clearly more intolerant. I can also point out the widespread support for Sharia and intolerant values.
But as I said the problem with Muslims is not that they would be monsters, which they are not (although they are more intolerant and the Koran a despicable text). The problem is that they are very different from us and we are divided into an us and a them, a situation that is unstable unless one identity dominates or a foreign enemy unites them. France is not a Muslim country and we will not tolerate this change.
As for me I have no hatred for Muslims, I have a hatred for millions of them taking over my country, and a hatred for Muhammad and the Koran because every sane mind should. But more importantly I am well too aware of human nature, of our differences and of the relentless conflicts that await us if we are ever forced to share our country on equal terms with them.
I gave to you all the elements to reach this conclusion. Apparently you cannot draw it and prefer to hammer your opinion rather than investigate the matter.Where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that a total, nuclear war in 1991 would leave 'billions' of people still alive?
This is not something he thinks, this is something his team measured as a professor at the University of Berlin. This is an unbiased factual evidence that half of second-generation Muslims in the considered countries are clearly intolerant, which is a strikingly higher proportion than other immigrant groups in those countries.I could care less what this guy in your link thinks. I will ask again...where is your link to UNBIASED, FACTUAL PROOF that the VAST majority of Muslims are NOT just as decent and accepting as anyone else?
Individual data are irrelevant to establish policies, populations as a whole are the only scale that matters.YOu would have to know most Muslims in the world to know what they think/feel. SInce you do not, you cannot.
I gave to you all the elements to reach this conclusion. Apparently you cannot draw it and prefer to hammer your opinion rather than investigate the matter.
And I was not guessing for NYC, this comes from a study I did read a long time ago, among others on this topic.
This is not something he thinks, this is something he measured as a professor at the University of Berlin. This is an unbiased factual evidence that half of second-generation Muslims in the considered countries are clearly intolerant, which is a strikingly higher proportion than other immigrant groups in those countries.
Now half is not the "VAST" majority, but I never claimed that the "vast" majority of them are intolerant, you are the one who claimed that the vast majority are tolerant, which this study proves to be wrong. You have shifted the goal posts.
And once again the problem is not so much that Muslims would be monsters. Simply that they are too many and they divide our countries into an us and a them, a recipe for disaster, a sure way to destroy a country.
Individual data are irrelevant to establish policies, populations as a whole are the only scale that matters.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?