6. North Korea. Some time ago got nuclear weapons. This regime is extreme and crumbling. They will not stop at using these weapons to survive. Also with American armies in South Korea. They may get itchy fingers on the button.
5. China’s booming economy is making it hungry for resources. They are investing heavily in African countries. Expanding their influence. The west thought the opening of the economy would lead to increased freedom for it’s people. But what cases such as Google show. Is this regimes power is not being diminished. And they still have their eyes on Taiwan who is supported by America.
4. Russia’s Gas grip on Europe. I have talked about this.
3. The collapse of the U.N . The U.N is the one organisation that can bring countries together to work together and work through divisions. But as I argued here the UN’s inability to effectively work beyond self interests could herald its demise as a body that can help maintain world peace.
2. Fundamental Islam. Does this one need to be explained. Iran, Syria, 9/11 Madrid 7/11 reaction to Danish cartoons. Fundamental Islamist are manipulating the poor moderates to make them believe that they are at war with the west. That they have to destroy the west. This large bank of hatred building up is going to boil over and effect us all. And people in the west like these people. Are helping the fundamental Imams turn moderate Muslims in to potential Jihadists.
1. Oil makes the world go round. It is vital for every countries economy and food production. Without it the world order would collapse. As resources diminish oil will drive countries to more and more desperate measures.
21 comments:
no mention of global warming and climate change.
1. I am not entirly convinced of the scientific arguements. I think we don't know enough about the planet self regurlator systems to really see what will happen in the future.
here is an interesting article by Michael Crichton
and 2 it maybe a threat to the world but it is not really a threat to peace. In the next 100 years anyway.
Oh man, you forgot to mention people willing to stand up to North Korea, Islamic fundamentalism etc.
You see its the West's fault.
If the West was'nt so gosh darn free, or if it was willing to just roll over and let Korea etc. do what they want, then we'd all live in peace, love and harmony, man.
Wouldn't that be groovy?
Man?
Shouldn't it be religious fundamentalism as opposed to Islamic fundamentalism - surely evangelical fundamentalism, zionist fundamentalism and catholic fundamentalism pose a threat as well and, in the great religious melting pot where we forget that we all simply see different sides of the same G/god, the rise of fundamentalism in different religious traditions puts us on the road to a theological collision, which will manifest itself in violence of many kinds.
Don't let the disrepctful tone Tuathal uses in making the point that the Wests 'response' is just as much a danger to world peace undermine the seriousness of the point.
Any of the dangers in the list are not explainable by a bad guy emerging some where in the East, there is a clash of civilisations, with neither side acting admirably.
"Disrespecful"? Dammit, i was going for sarcastic.
Fiona when is the last time christian fundamentalism resulted in the deaths of 3000 people.
Has christian fundementalist ever had a religious war against another race in the last 500 years.
Israel palestine situation would appeaar outside the top 6
All "ism"s are bad but Islamic is at the moment is far worse.
Christian Fundamentalism want to destroy Darwin, Islamic fundamentalism wants to dstroy the west.
Tuathal you are right the west is the big problem. If North Korea. take over South Korea then the Korean Peninsula would be at war but the rest of the world would be peaceful.
Yeah its such a shame that Iran, Korea etc. have an enemy. If only the West didn't exist there'd be no problems at all. Come to think of it, if it wasn't for the Allies there would have been no World War 2.
Who's in favour of drawing up a survey, "What the West can do to keep you guys happy?"
tuathal i guess these might be some pf the answers
Install sharia law in bradford.
Destroy Israel.
Give money to these countries in the form of charity while similtaniously stop buying their only export i.e. oil.
Make the west more free with less government interference while not try to do the same in the east.
Condemn the west supporting corrupt regimes while support the regimes the west doesn't support.
Critise governments who discriminate against women but support them having laws forcing women to wear the hajaib.
Or am I being unfair to the west bashers. I probably am. But still some people might think they are good ideas.
In the first instance, it would be more honest to rename your post
"Top 6 Threats to Western Security" - I don't get a Miss World, "if I had one wish, it would be form world peace" vibe here.
I'm well aware of Crighton's "contribution" to the debate (which is little more than an entertaining post-modernist, critical conceit), but I think I'll be taking my cue from the scientician community, rather than from a writer of lurid, mass market paperbacks, thank you very much.
It still amazes me that people can look at the extent of human activity, the unending streams of traffic on the road and consider that there is an impact on the biosphere, especially in light of the latest bad news from the greenland ice sheet. After extensive reading over years on all sides of the argument, and having some little skill in understanding how writing works and is deployed, I can tell you which side is more convincing and which side has a dubious agenda. Mark Steyn please stand up.
But whatever. That the planet may be fucked to the extent that doing anything about our impact on it is a waste of time, is perfectly plausible. But to state
"it maybe a threat to the world but it is not really a threat to peace. In the next 100 years anyway."
is to fundamentally misunderstand the world. Anyway, how can a threat to the world not be a threat to peace. Think of the human animal for two seconds.
Climate change has damaged and threatens to destroy to a further extent resources. And when there are fewer resources, competition for them increases.
Water security (its pollution and inundation) is one of the great issues of our age and a flashpoint between our potential EU mate Turkey and its water poor neighbours to the south. Rising water levels drive people from their land which creates further tension and reduces the amount of cultivable food.
I can tell you people will be a lot quicker and more desperate to go to war over water and food than they are over having their feelings hurt over a bunch of Danish cartoons.
(I know you're a physicist, by the way, so check out Our Final Century by Martin Rees, which encompasses your next 100 years)
Ah few months prior to the greenland ice cap annoucemennt. was a annoucement that the ice caps were infact growing in height.
One of the outcomes of the ice pack mealting is that it will decrease the salient content in the oceans causeing the gulf stream to stop coming to europe. Causeing Europe to frezze.
Now considering that europe is more north then canada. This wouold cause a new ice pack to develope in Sweden and Norway. This would result in a rise in the salient content in the oceans. Thus correcting the error that caused Europe to fresze. This would result in Europe thawing as the gulf stream restarts. decreasing the salient content in the oceans. And starting the whole cycle again.
We don't have enough understanding of Earths cycles to really say what is going to happen.
But I take your point on clean water. I think that technology will in prove to the point where water will be easily purified.
Even if this wishful scenario were plausible, a) you make no mention of the period over which the crisis would last
and b) it's totally Eurocentric. What about people who are losing their land right to rising water in the far east right now? What about the implications for world peace of environmental degradation in central eurasia, already at an advanced stage?
My point was to show that the Earth has a large degree of self regulation. I mean how do we know that the earth does not have a mechanism to deal with all this.
It doesn't seem reasonable to assume the earth would have a mechanism to deal with something unprecedented, like mass industrial society. Of course it may.....
Thats my point we just don't know
What we know for sure is that there is no such thing as "normal" with regard to the environment. It is in a constant state of flux. It just seems stable to us because our lives are pathetically short in a geological sense.
I'm sure that the balance of environmental gases has some effect, but the major determinant with regards to global temperatures is our distance to the sun and the tilt of the earth to the sun. At this time, I don't believe we have any means to control or effect those factors.
This does not mean that I advocate the continuation of our reliance on fossil fuels. I would like to see us use alternatives and there are a lot of good reasons to use alternatives that have nothing to do with global warming.
Thats my point we just don't know
To be fair, I think your point was a little stronger than that originally. And my point is that we can't know anything for sure ever about anything. However, to assume human activity has not upset a so-called "balance" in the ecosystem or accelerated a process which would otherwise take a much longer and more adaptation-friendly period, is unreasonable given the overwhelming evidence and the very nature and scale of human activity currently.
In fairness I was just back from the pub when I made that last point.:)
Like the idea of the lists. I think you could add George Bush to this list
I don't even get why the mention of the collapse of the UN is placed on that list. Ever since its inception all the UN has ever done is provide a means by which the US, Russia, China, Britain, and French have imposed their will upon the other nations. The UN is nearly useless in the sense that it had originally set out to be. Not only that scandals involving the World Bank and other off shoots of the UN seriously downplays its importance.
Anyhow in my opinion the biggest threats would be:
1. USA. With a maniac like GW Bush in charge, I'd be more worried about him launching nukes at a whim.
2 & 3. Afghanistan & Pakistan (growing terrorism will most likely cause more trouble for the two "weak" democracies to face a lot of turmoil) They will undoubtedly become havens for terrorists => causing further instability in the region.
4. Japan. Even though Junichiro is gone, the military build up in Japan is actually continuing and at a greater pace than even China o_O, and the Neo-Conservatives in Japan are continuing to fuel its increase. Though Japan states its pacifist natures, it is not the case, something that will undoubtedly cause problems in the Far East, China, Both Koreas, Taiwan, and Russia have been talking about this issue for sometime, but people in North America are generally oblivious to this fact.
5. Iran. Though we all classify Iran as one of the "roots" to terrorism, I have placed it in 5th place simply because of its lack of being a threat. Not only does the country's equipment pale in comparison to Iraq, its weak "democratic" structure has much of its power base with the religious leaders, making Mahomoud Ahmadinejad's stance to be little and futile in general. If Iran does try to project its power, it will most likely only be in the form of terrorists like Bin Laden and his lackies.
6 & 7. Taiwan & China. I am stating Taiwan as 6th and China as 7th simply because of the current stance of their governments. First the current Taiwan government the DRP under Chen Shui Bian is rampant with corruption, something that has prompted enormous protest (200,000-300,000 protesters in 2006). This in addition to various "bad policies" by the DRP has put them at all time lows at the polls. This has edged Chen Shui Bian to use various "techniques" to court more voters to their side. Most predominant of the DRP's techniques is to bring in a sense of "Nationalism" and "Independence" / Anti-Chinese sentiments. We must note that the KMT has never taken such a stance and thus this is seen as a turn for the worst in the far east, as it will undoubtedly lead to "pissing" off the PRC. On the Chinese (PRC) side of things, their military build up has been increasing over the past 10-15 years and though as a percentage of their GDP is relatively small, this still amounts to increasing suspicions by USA, Japan, and Taiwan (in that order). However considering the current business man like style of government (their pretty much a Capitalist Socialist/Dictatorship right now) the course of actions of China pretty much depends on one man: Hu Jintao, which considering his past has kept a "low profile" and utilizing a leave me alone kind of stance for the PRC. Which shows that as a whole the PRC is more docile than its more volatile island neighbour.
8 and 9. Venezuela and Boliva. Chavez is definitely a thorn to the Americans (his outburst of Bush = Devil comes to mind), his Socialist style of government will definitely not stand well with the GOP. With gas prices near all time highs, Chavez is able to build up military and his government's power, thus increasing Socialist sentiments within the South American continent. Depending on the situation, the GOP might even call for military action against Venezuela if things gets out of hand. Boliva's Morales can be seen both as a staunch ally of Chavez and an extra showing that the Socialists have taken a stronghold over the South American states. Much like Chavez, the policies of Bolivia are quite anti-American.
10. Russia. Putin's Russia hasn't really done much as of late. However with various scandals such as the killing of ex-KGB, Alexander Litvinenko, and Russia being one of the world's biggest supplier of weapons and holder of the most nuclear weapons, any sorts of aggression shown by Russia will undoubtedly cause ramifications on a global scale.
Post a Comment