Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 47 of 47

Thread: Since the Fall of the Soviet Union

  1. #41
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!

    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    33,692
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Since the Fall of the Soviet Union

    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    What 700,000? 700,000 were displaced in African wars, but I don't know of anything on that scale there by Russians.
    Mengistu was backed by the USSR, the Ethiopian Red Terror led to deaths of between 500,000 and 750,000 Ethiopians. That's just one example. We could also factor in all the deaths from the US backed coups in South America, the rest of the USSR's actions in Africa and Asia. Direct actions such as the Vietnam and Korean wars, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The actions of the Maoists in China, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and of course the USSR's various repressions on its own turf.

    Sure, Western Europe and North America may not be as safe, but much of the third world is a hell of a lot safer now that major powers aren't funding ideological wars in and around them.
    So follow me into the desert
    As desperate as you are
    Where the moon is glued to a picture of heaven
    And all the little pigs have God

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    France
    Last Seen
    02-04-17 @ 03:49 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    773

    Re: Since the Fall of the Soviet Union

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Where is your link to scientific evidence of this theory of yours?
    See this study for example. I engage you to look for additional studies if you want to.

    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.
    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.

    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.

    Link to factual data, please.
    I can provide links in French, not in English, and in PM only (I got warned by moderators against posting French links).

    If this is fine for you I will provide you:

    * A reference to an official study that shows that Muslims amount to 28% of high-schoolers in the area of Marseilles (Bouches-du-Rhône). The third I mentioned about the Paris' youth comes from paper only but this other one should convince you. Especially since such a number is not surprising once you realize that Muslim demographics are younger and concentrated in cities.

    * Official historical population numbers that show a growth rate equivalent to a doubling over three decades.

    With that in hands, you would have to be stubborn to refuse to believe that they could grow from 30% (of Parisian youth) to 50% (Paris overall) before the end of this century.


    Meanwhile, you can look at the data for UK, for which data are more easily usable here (English language + no prohibition on ethnic stats): despite only being 5% of Britain, they account to 12% of London. A third of them are below 15 years old and their population increased by 33% in London between 2001 and 2011. 400% between 1981 and 2011.

    Just because there is no BBC article stating "Muslims will demographically dominate London at this rate", it does not mean it is not happening. The data are there for anyone willing to seriously examine them.

    The VAST majority of Muslims are just as decent and accepting as anyone else.
    No, but this is irrelevant anyway.

    The problem is not that Muslims are monsters (although their cultures are a lot more intolerant and xenophobe than other groups). The problem is that we are different identities with different cultures, different values and different civilizational ideals. We will always be divided, always an "us" and a "them", which never works for a country.

    Moreover they are quickly and radically changing OUR countries, and a fast demographic shift is the best way to prompt extremism. We will not stand by while Muslims do islamize our country and spread THEIR culture. But before you accuse us and incorrectly blame the far-right (confusing cause and consequence), I have no doubt that the first ethnic cleansing in France will be committed by them, not by us.

    This is OUR country. Not a Muslim ****hole.

    The only reasons so many Middle Eastern nations are a mess are politics and poverty...it's little/nothing to do with religion.
    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.

    See also Robert Putnam's works.
    Last edited by Auvergnat; 01-03-17 at 04:59 AM.

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 02:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: Since the Fall of the Soviet Union

    Quote Originally Posted by Auvergnat View Post
    See this study for example. I engage you to look for additional studies if you want to.
    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?


    No, the majority of the arsenal is made of W88 warheads
    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.
    But anyway, do you have a link to BRIEF proof that just a fraction of the nuclear arsenals available of the nuclear powers at that time could not destroy all world cities?
    There is no way that I can imagine that you could convince me that every world city could not have been obliterated by nuclear weapons in 1991. There were too many of the latter and not enough of the former.

    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.
    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.
    Plus, all of America's and the U.S.S.R.'s allies would probably have been nuked in an all out war.


    No, but this is irrelevant anyway. TO my statement 'The VAST majority of Muslims are just as decent and accepting as anyone else.'
    That is utter nonsense.

    Where is your link to UNBIASED, FACTUAL PROOF of this.

    Your statement is not only utterly ridiculous...it is also 100% IMPOSSIBLE to prove. To do so, you would have to personally know a majority of the over 1 billion Muslims in the world. SInce clearly you do not...you have not the foggiest idea what most of them feel or think.


    And the fact remains that the vast majority of French cities are NOT Muslim. I do not care what your projections state. They are not now...not even close.

    And even if they were...there is nothing wrong with that...unless you have a hatred for Muslims - which you seem to.
    Last edited by DA60; 01-03-17 at 05:33 AM.

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    France
    Last Seen
    02-04-17 @ 03:49 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    773

    Re: Since the Fall of the Soviet Union

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    ...
    * 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.

    * The 15k warheads you mentioned are all warheads ever produced. Current stocks are below 10k, with less than half being deployed.

    * 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.

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 02:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: Since the Fall of the Soviet Union

    Quote Originally Posted by Auvergnat View Post
    * 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.
    Where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that a total, nuclear war in 1991 would leave 'billions' of people still alive?

    Again, today is irrelevant. Times are different, anti-ballistic defense systems are far more effective and the total number of warheads is lower.

    My point refers to pre-1991 ONLY. That is what the OP is about.

    * The 15k warheads you mentioned are all warheads ever produced. Current stocks are below 10k, with less than half being deployed.
    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.

    And there are those that think their are over 15,000 warheads now.

    World Nuclear Weapon Stockpile | Ploughshares Fund

    * 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 are guessing again. But even if it took 20 to destroy the NYC area - there were easily enough warheads back in 1991 for that.

    * 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 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? Proof...not estimates or theories. You stated it in a matter-of-fact manner.Thus, you must have FACTS to prove it or your statement is erroneous and useless.

    And again...I am telling you your prejudicial opinion is TOTALLY impossible to prove.

    YOu would have to know most Muslims in the world to know what they think/feel. SInce you do not, you cannot.

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    France
    Last Seen
    02-04-17 @ 03:49 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    773

    Re: Since the Fall of the Soviet Union

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that a total, nuclear war in 1991 would leave 'billions' of people still alive?
    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.

    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?
    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.

    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.

    YOu would have to know most Muslims in the world to know what they think/feel. SInce you do not, you cannot.
    Individual data are irrelevant to establish policies, populations as a whole are the only scale that matters.
    Last edited by Auvergnat; 01-03-17 at 12:03 PM.

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 02:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: Since the Fall of the Soviet Union

    Quote Originally Posted by Auvergnat View Post
    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.
    So you have no links that I requested. And as I stated, it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to prove your statement about Muslims. Any decent scientist could tell you that.

    And I try not to spend my time with people who are negatively prejudiced against others strictly on the basis of religion (and btw, I am a WASP)...we are done here. I have no respect for that thought process or usually for the people who hold them.
    I find that thought process ignorant and disgusting.


    Have a nice day.
    Last edited by DA60; 01-03-17 at 12:09 PM.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •