View Poll Results: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

Voters
710. You may not vote on this poll
  • Multi-Polar World

    458 64.51%
  • Nuclear War

    252 35.49%
Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 157

Thread: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

  1. #51
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,589

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    If you had the choice between ONLY two things, a multi-polar world in which the US shared power with other countries or a nuclear war, which would you prefer?


    At all points of history when the there was not a MAD stand-off or a unipolar dominance, there has been ongoing warfare ranging skirmishes to world war. You know, exactly what is happening right now.

    Your question is baseless.
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Last Seen
    08-18-15 @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,974

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    At all points of history when the there was not a MAD stand-off or a unipolar dominance, there has been ongoing warfare ranging skirmishes to world war. You know, exactly what is happening right now.

    Your question is baseless.
    No it is not baseless because there are people in the foreign policy establishment in the U.S. who want to prevent Russia from projecting power into Europe by constraining their influence on Ukraine. This has resulted in the current military conflict there. If it comes to the point where the U.S. starts directly supporting Ukraine militarily, we do indeed run the risk of that escalating into a nuclear conflict with Russia. Therefore the question is not baseless.

  3. #53
    Invictus


    Rogue Valley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,120

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    No it is not baseless because there are people in the foreign policy establishment in the U.S. who want to prevent Russia from projecting power into Europe by constraining their influence on Ukraine.
    Russia's "influence" in Ukraine has so far resulted in a minimum of 5,400 dead and 1,000,000 displaced.


    Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet. -- Marine Corps General James 'Chaos' Mattis

  4. #54
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,853

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    If you had the choice between ONLY two things, a multi-polar world in which the US shared power with other countries or a nuclear war, which would you prefer?
    I have a better question:

    If you had the choice between ONLY two things, you beat your wife to an inch of her life or someone else beats your wife to an inch of her life, which would you prefer?


    (I'm guessing that your reason for not choosing one of these is the same reason I didn't choose one of your poll options.)
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  5. #55
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

    The poll is a false contrast.

    A multi-polar-world is more likely to need to nuclear war. Most notable are now numerous Islamic groups trying to recreate a theocratic Islamic Empire, including to fulfill prophesy of a castastrophic worldwide war - which Muslims will win.

    Multiple major regional powers vying for top spot also creates the risk of nuclear war. It should be noted that nuclear war and a nuclear weapon terror attack are not the same.

    Also, there is difference between a war in which some nuclear weapons are used - and total nuclear war. WWII could be called a nuclear war as atomic bombs were used. The human race was not destroyed. MANY VASTLY larger hydrogen bombs have been set off - without humanity destroyed.

  6. #56
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    The point is this, there are some who appear hell bent on maintaining a uni-polar world with the US on top, even to the point of risking nuclear war.
    The pro-Russian Chicken Little argument again. There isn't going to be a global nuclear war. Contrary to the view that if anyone uses a nuclear weapon humanity is destroyed, to the contrast life has a remarkable ability to survive - particularly humans.

    Though not advocating it, a very limited nuclear exchange probably could be educational in the sense of stopping further escalation and circumstantially could save lives by ending a larger scale war. The 2 atomic bombs used against Japan probably saved millions of lives - Japanese, American/Allies, Chinese and Russian - by ending the war via demonstrating the pointlessness of continuing a massive conventional war.

  7. #57
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    This isn't about confronting a regime because of oppression. If we were really concerned about that we would confront Saudi Arabia. Quite frankly U.S. interests in Ukraine lie in containing Russia. However people like you cannot differentiate between an interest and a vital interest. Although Ukraine is of interest to the U.S. because the U.S. does have an interest in containing Russia, it is not a VITAL interest. However, Crimea is a vital interest of Russia. There is no panic on my part. What I am trying to do is keep people who think like you that actually have power from putting the U.S. in a position in which there would actually be a need to panic.

    If the U.S. launched an assault to take Crimea from Russia, Russia would be in a situation in which their conventional forces would be overwhelmed by U.S. military superiority. In that situation it is highly likely that they would retaliate with nuclear weapons. Why some idiots want to put the U.S. in such a position over Ukraine is mind boggling.

    That said, let me ask you a question. Do you think that the U.S. should take Crimea and eastern Ukraine from Russia by force?
    None of your perspectives are reality. Russia is not going to go to nuclear war. There have been dozens of proxy conflicts and wars between the West and the East - so the answer is that your concerns simply are not reality.

    Nor is the question of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine about the USA using military force. Rather, it is a matter of economics, diplomacy, and potentially giving/selling weapons to Ukraine against aircraft, heavy armor and other indirect military support, possibly thru 3rd parties.

    The world has survived many wars all over the world, many conflicts, and many show-downs including between the USA/West and Russia, also with China. No nuclear war.

    The nuclear weapons danger is not nuclear war. It is a nuclear terror attack which could kill millions, devastate the economy and fundamentally change society. But that is very different from total nuclear war. That won't happen.

  8. #58
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,589

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

    Quote Originally Posted by MildSteel View Post
    No it is not baseless because there are people in the foreign policy establishment in the U.S. who want to prevent Russia from projecting power into Europe by constraining their influence on Ukraine. This has resulted in the current military conflict there. If it comes to the point where the U.S. starts directly supporting Ukraine militarily, we do indeed run the risk of that escalating into a nuclear conflict with Russia. Therefore the question is not baseless.
    It is baseless because you limit the choices to the two you have chosen.

    During the periods of Pax Romana ended by the fall of the Roman Empire or Pax Britannica ended finally by WW2 but severely impaired by WW1, there was relative peace due to the overpowering uni-polar dominance of one country.

    I would choose neither of the options you present.
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

  9. #59
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,775

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    What a stupid question!

    "Hey! Who here wants to see mankind wiped from the face of earth?!"

    I doubt this forum has any ISIS members.
    Of fundamentalist Christians. Oh wait...
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  10. #60
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,775

    Re: Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

    Quote Originally Posted by idea_steed View Post
    Yea. A nuclear war is the start of the apocalypse which no one likes.
    There are lots of religious crazies who want exactly that. There are a regular stream of fundamentalist Christians who go to Israel with the express purpose of blowing up the Dome of the Rock so the Jews can rebuild the temple and begin the end of days. These people are out of their minds.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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