Author Topic: Are Failed Nations a greater threat to us then stable ones?  (Read 4252 times)

I actually just heard this on my Trip to the UN today, they agree'd that they could be, but aren't currently worried.

Short loving answer.

yes.

Long loving answer.

Well due to the destabilization caused by a poor global market third world countries are only going deeper into the stuff because they have no major source of income. So they decide to harbor terrorists or god knows what in their country as well as smuggle and ship illegal goods through their country, Eg. crack, marijuana, illegal firearms Etc. Some countries, such as the poorer ones in the middle east, due to their naturally perfect climate, soil and such, are even growing marijuana. of course that is the least of our problems cause these massive destabilizations cause civil unrest and wars amongst private militaries, mercenaries, and other various groups, for example, the Rebel tribes in Sudan, the remaining Vietcong, and even the more elusive groups such as the underground communist revolutions of the western world. The fighting groups will cause even more problems for all of the obvious reasons, death, famine, economic strain; but the fact of the matter is that these problems lead to prostitution and that leads to a population boom which can't be handled as well as a spread of STD's such as AIDS. Then again what exactly is a "failed nation" well if you look at my 3 point chart or the 3 P's: Population, Prosperity, and Peace, you can see that many "successful nations" have at least 2 of the points filled; although I admit in these times most countries are involved in a war or an economic crCIA but they all have a controlled population. Failed nations such as Darfur, Congo, or even Ecuador have a poor economy or are involved in some sort of civil unrest or may even have a population that is spiraling out of control. All these ideas lead back to the original point of whether or not failed nations are more of a threat than more stabilized ones and my answer is yes. But of course some developed countries such as China, Egypt, or even Saudi Arabia pose a threat to us economically; such as the case with us maintain a dependence on Chinese manufacturing or a problem militarily such as with Certain countries in the middle east obtaining the materials needed for weapons of mass destruction. Of course though undeveloped countries can obtain these materials as well through more illegal means or even purchasing them straight from the terrorists. So we really should be on the lookout for all countries that may pose a threat to us, in essence, you can never be too paranoid when it comes to multi national negotiations.

Might be missing a semi colon in there somewhere :/

If china had a war with us we'd be dead. Aka: everything we have is made in china, plus they have a huge population.

If china had a war with us we'd be dead. Aka: everything we have is made in china, plus they have a huge population.
loving hell man did you even read what i just posted?

If china had a war with us we'd be dead. Aka: everything we have is made in china, plus they have a huge population.
Yeah because we're not China's #1 consumer.

China and the US will most likely never be at war. Infact, I highly doubt another war between the "good" countries will ever happen again.  :cookieMonster:

China and the US will most likely never be at war. Infact, I highly doubt another war between the "good" countries will ever happen again.  :cookieMonster:
But Russia attacked Georgia :(

loving hell man did you even read what i just posted?
too long.

But, still, it is worth bringing up. That there is an obvious fault of British command. Lest we forget.
I am british and what is this.

loving hell man did you even read what i just posted?
Derp :(


Hugums, you have a very shallow view of the world in general. You basically compiled a paragraph full of buzzwords and tried to create facts. I'm not trying to stuff on you but you really have no real hard grasp on the issue.

Example: The Vietcong were the guerrilla movement in South Vietnam that counteracted the US by gaining a foothold in the local population, something the US never could fully match. They weren't mercenaries, because they were a grass roots people's militia based off of the Vietminh that drove the Japanese out (and later the French). Also they weren't hired by anyone to help the NVA, which is pretty important if you think about it.

Also impoverished nations generally lack any hospitals or places to tend for the sick, and the living conditions for most are dismal. Overcrowding does breed diseases like tuberculosis and plague, so the poorest of the poor generally suffer the most. Topped this onto the lack of clean fresh water and lack of knowledge about how disease spread and you have your AIDs/HIV/Hepatitis/etc.

You can measure the quality of living of a country by the birth rate, if the birthrate is very low; it will show the quality of life as being very poor.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2009, 01:51:28 AM by Ronin »

I don't think foreign powers (even the ones with nukes) think that blowing other countries up is the way to go. No matter how far out there a leader of a country can get, at some point I think everyone realizes that if a nuclear missile was launched, it would result (at the very least, in the end) in hundreds of thousands if not millions of civilian casualties.

If china had a war with us we'd be dead. Aka: everything we have is made in china, plus they have a huge population.


Having a huge poplutation doesn't mean you have a big army, I think Great Britian has the most biggest army.


Having a huge poplutation doesn't mean you have a big army, I think Great Britian has the most biggest army.
I think you're wrong. Actually, I know you're wrong.

First of all, the United Kingdom has 61 million people. China has 1,334 million people, approximately 22 times larger population. China has an army of 2.255 Million people, this is 1 chinese troop for every 27 citizens of the United Kingdom. It's also twice the size of America's military.

Your United Kingdom? The 25th largest active army in the world. 208,000 troops.

Brazil has a bigger army than the UK.

France. Has a bigger army than the UK.

Also, I just noticed you said "I think Great Britain has the most biggest army." I can't believe I spent time looking up these facts.

on terrorists;

No they could never be as big a threat as a real country declared enemy.

terrorists depend on private money, that can be limited very quickly for many reasons. and they depend on menial recruitment and substandard training (because they do it privately)

even a stuffty country is only limited by its population to pour at the enemy. it almost don't even matter if you can afford a real war, some dictator can make it happen anyways.


on big armies;

Iraq had the largest Armour units on earth both times we went in on them. biggest threat in the middle east.
it was laughable. we flattened them all in just hours

cant really judge power just by numbers anymore
« Last Edit: November 14, 2009, 04:03:33 AM by Bisjac »

I think you're wrong. Actually, I know you're wrong.

First of all, the United Kingdom has 61 million people. China has 1,334 million people, approximately 22 times larger population. China has an army of 2.255 Million people, this is 1 chinese troop for every 27 citizens of the United Kingdom. It's also twice the size of America's military.

Your United Kingdom? The 25th largest active army in the world. 208,000 troops.

Brazil has a bigger army than the UK.

France. Has a bigger army than the UK.

Also, I just noticed you said "I think Great Britain has the most biggest army." I can't believe I spent time looking up these facts.


That's what the Guiness world records said, I think it was 2008.