| Off Topic > Off Topic |
| Are Failed Nations a greater threat to us then stable ones? |
| (1/12) > >> |
| Tom:
This is a pretty interesting topic, because stable nations could blow us up in no time, but they have no reason to. However, there are terrorist and anti-western people in unstable nations who wouldn't mind doing some damage, but they do not have the power to do so. What do you think? |
| Netwars4:
Well 'terrorists' would easily be a higher threat depending on where they are. Why so? Because depending on where they are, a country might want to 'sponsor' them in order to gain some control of the lands in that area. As a theoretical example (as in, my dad told it to me but i have no proof to back this as being fact): lets say that Sudanese militia needed weapons, preferably the losing team. Now lets add that sudan (in theory) has major oil supplies, and that china needs more oil exploits. China could give guns to a side, and in return would have access to some of that team's conquered lands. However for a stable nation, they have to rely mostly upon themselves, whereas 'undeveloped' nations suckle off of other countries in order to get the things that they need. Also, in order to get MAJOR damage weapons, a country's scientists could easily go to a different country and get information from them, and then apply it back in their home country. |
| Tom:
--- Quote from: Netwars4 on November 13, 2009, 12:15:34 AM ---However for a stable nation, they have to rely mostly upon themselves, whereas 'undeveloped' nations suckle off of other countries in order to get the things that they need. --- End quote --- We suck a lot of china and oil exporting nations. |
| Netwars4:
I was going for more of a weapons sense. |
| IceBlue:
--- Quote from: Netwars4 on November 13, 2009, 12:15:34 AM ----snip- --- End quote --- Look at the Vietnam war. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |