• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Since the Fall of the Soviet Union

Here's a question: do you think that the world is a more dangerous place since the fall of the Soviet Union?

I would think not. The Soviet Union was a major threat to the U.S., at least until the 80's. And when the Soviets collapsed, I think it was a death knell for any meaningful Communism as well, which is a good thing for world peace since Mao, Lenin, and Stalin killed many millions of their own people.
 
That is quite trivial.
Possibly.
Yes it is.
It depends on diplomacy.
No. Like, a million times no.
The world has always been a dangerous place
The world is and has always been a dangerous place.
It is a bit hard to compare.
I would think not.

Thanks for your replies they are quite interesting. Before we continue, I had a point in the question that I thought one of might hit on, and Sherman came very close:

As far as the danger after the collapse, I’m thinking of the release of pirates and rouge entities. The effects for instance of the Russian mafia, arms dealers and thieves, the possibility of transfer of material for dirty bombs, Russian mercenaries etc. Do you think that Putin has handle on all of these things, or are there some that have let loose? Iraqi generals created the ISIS machine. Are there Russians creating the same types of clandestine machines?
 
Oh Jeez...FAR safer.

The chances of nuclear war since the end of the Soviet Union are far, FAR less. And all other dangers pale in comparison to nuclear annihilation.

1430px-Doomsday_Clock_graph.svg.png


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock
 
Here's a question: do you think that the world is a more dangerous place since the fall of the Soviet Union?

Well considering the fact that people believed back then it was only a matter of time before a nuclear war that would eradicate humanity from the face of Earth I think it's pretty much safer now.
 
Oh Jeez...FAR safer.

The chances of nuclear war since the end of the Soviet Union are far, FAR less. And all other dangers pale in comparison to nuclear annihilation.

1430px-Doomsday_Clock_graph.svg.png


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock

What about this:

As far as the danger after the collapse, I’m thinking of the release of pirates and rouge entities. The effects for instance of the Russian mafia, arms dealers and thieves, the possibility of transfer of material for dirty bombs, Russian mercenaries etc. Do you think that Putin has handle on all of these things, or are there some that have let loose? Iraqi generals created the ISIS machine. Are there Russians creating the same types of clandestine machines?
 
Well considering the fact that people believed back then it was only a matter of time before a nuclear war that would eradicate humanity from the face of Earth I think it's pretty much safer now.

What about this:

As far as the danger after the collapse, I’m thinking of the release of pirates and rouge entities. The effects for instance of the Russian mafia, arms dealers and thieves, the possibility of transfer of material for dirty bombs, Russian mercenaries etc. Do you think that Putin has handle on all of these things, or are there some that have let loose? Iraqi generals created the ISIS machine. Are there Russians creating the same types of clandestine machines?
 
What about this:

As far as the danger after the collapse, I’m thinking of the release of pirates and rouge entities. The effects for instance of the Russian mafia, arms dealers and thieves, the possibility of transfer of material for dirty bombs, Russian mercenaries etc. Do you think that Putin has handle on all of these things, or are there some that have let loose? Iraqi generals created the ISIS machine. Are there Russians creating the same types of clandestine machines?

All of those things combined do not remotely add up to the total destruction of humanity...which was far riskier before the Soviet Union broke up.

So I still gotta go with it is WAY safer now.
 
Here's a question: do you think that the world is a more dangerous place since the fall of the Soviet Union?

The world is more chaotic but not more dangerous. It is also more free and prosperous.
 
Your international policies do not change from president to president,we all know this fact

You specifically, and your country generally, know nothing.
 
The effects for instance of the Russian mafia, arms dealers and thieves, the possibility of transfer of material for dirty bombs, Russian mercenaries etc. Do you think that Putin has handle on all of these things, or are there some that have let loose?
Nuclear materials are more easily obtained from Iran (a disunited country where the central power is more and more challenged by tribes) or Pakistan, where Talibans almost conquered areas with nuclear sites a few years ago.

All of those things combined do not remotely add up to the total destruction of humanity...which was far riskier before the Soviet Union broke up.
Humanity could not have been destroyed by an all-out global nuclear war (an implausible scenario btw). The nuclear winter would not be that severe that we could not adapt, and it would soften after a few years. Billions of humans would survive. Not our cattle.

However the USA and USSR would certainly become mostly no-man's land. But when it comes to my own country, France, our territory is small enough that a few Muslim nukes on Paris could kill a third to a half of the population and bring us to the dark ages for a century, with large parts of the country closed after this. And there is the Muslim demographic takeover in our large urban areas.

The USA are probably safer right now. France has never been so much endangered since the defeat against Nazis.

But watch for China: they are a nationalist people led by a government that is now embracing a domination agenda. And as soon as their growth will halt, and at some point it will, the only way for their dictatorship to maintain its grip over its people will be the threat of foreign enemies.
 
Nuclear materials are more easily obtained from Iran (a disunited country where the central power is more and more challenged by tribes) or Pakistan, where Talibans almost conquered areas with nuclear sites a few years ago.


Humanity could not have been destroyed by an all-out global nuclear war (an implausible scenario btw). The nuclear winter would not be that severe that we could not adapt, and it would soften after a few years. Billions of humans would survive. Not our cattle.

However the USA and USSR would certainly become mostly no-man's land. But when it comes to my own country, France, our territory is small enough that a few Muslim nukes on Paris could kill a third to a half of the population and bring us to the dark ages for a century, with large parts of the country closed after this. And there is the Muslim demographic takeover in our large urban areas.

The USA are probably safer right now. France has never been so much endangered since the defeat against Nazis.

But watch for China: they are a nationalist people led by a government that is now embracing a domination agenda. And as soon as their growth will halt, and at some point it will, the only way for their dictatorship to maintain its grip over its people will be the threat of foreign enemies.

It is impossible to factually state that a nuclear war would not wipe out humanity.

One would have to know how many nukes were used, where and what long lasting effects they would have on both atmospheric radiation levels and the amount of carbon in the atmosphere (nuclear winter).

But even if a tiny part of humanity survived, it would still be a far worse scenario than all the things jet57 listed...by many times.


And as for 'Muslim demographic takeovers'? Nonsense.

One) far and away most Muslims are peaceful - so who cares (unless you are prejudiced).

Two) only 7-9% of France is Muslim anyway...with two-thirds being Christian (according to the CIA World Fact Book)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_France#Religious_membership_statistics
 
Last edited:
It is impossible to factually state that a nuclear war would not wipe out humanity.
Assuming the worst case (all nukes fired), the total amount of nukes owned by mankind are known well enough, and the amount of ejected dust per explosion and its impact on atmosphere can be estimated by looking at volcanic explosions of similar magnitude.

There are debates but the modern studies on this topic all conclude to surmountable consequences. Billions would survive, maybe most of mankind.

And as for 'Muslim demographic takeovers'? Nonsense.
They amount to a third of the youth in Paris' region and other large urban areas. Their numbers doubled over thirty years, in large parts thanks to immigration, and this accelerates.

At this rate before the end of the century they will have took over our main urban areas by conservative estimations. The countryside will be spared, but it is not what matters the most.

At this rate by 2100 France will not be a Muslim country but Paris will be a Muslim city and France will be a new Nigeria, divided between Muslims and non-Muslims, plagued by hatred, distrust, conflicts, corruption and political instability.

France is being destroyed as we speak. This is real, forget the reassuring national averages (8%-11%) you read without factoring in the age composition, urban concentration, demographic growth and inertia.

One) far and away most Muslims are peaceful - so who cares (unless you are prejudiced).
Muslims and non-Muslims never manage to live together, unless one of them clearly dominate. Otherwise the result is a slaughter.

In general multiple identities always have a hard time coexisting together, unless one dominates or when they are united by a foreign threat. It was easier in the past because interactions were fewer (slower transportation and communication): two villages separated by 50km were two ends of the world. This is why we have seen a rise of ethnic cleansings in the modern age: there is a recreation of ethnic homogeneity everywhere.

Finally even if we could live together, a Muslim France would no longer be France. It would be yet another Muslim hell hole.
 
Assuming the worst case (all nukes fired), the total amount of nukes owned by mankind are known well enough, and the amount of ejected dust per explosion and its impact on atmosphere can be estimated by looking at volcanic explosions of similar magnitude.

There are debates but the modern studies on this topic all conclude to surmountable consequences. Billions would survive, maybe most of mankind.
No offense, but total nonsense.

Where is your link to scientific evidence of this theory of yours?

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. That leaves about 3 billion people left (assuming NONE of them died when the cities blew up - which is clearly NOT what would happen). Throw 1,000 nukes each at rural India, China, the EU, America, Africa, Southeast Asia, South America and Australia and there is no way you would have 'billions' of people left. No chance at all.
And that does not take into account the gigantic amount of nuclear winter you would create.

And remember, back before 1991 there were virtually no anti-ballistic missile defenses. The U.S.S.R. had a crude one around Moscow and that was about it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/11/...wth-is-urban-united-nations-report-finds.html

http://www.statisticbrain.com/total-number-of-cities-in-the-world/


They amount to a third of the youth in Paris' region and other large urban areas. Their numbers doubled over thirty years, in large parts thanks to immigration, and this accelerates.

At this rate before the end of the century they will have took over our main urban areas by conservative estimations. The countryside will be spared, but it is not what matters the most.

At this rate by 2100 France will not be a Muslim country but Paris will be a Muslim city and France will be a new Nigeria, divided between Muslims and non-Muslims, plagued by hatred, distrust, conflicts, corruption and political instability.

France is being destroyed as we speak. This is real, forget the reassuring national averages (8%-11%) you read without factoring in the age composition, urban concentration, demographic growth and inertia.
Link to factual data, please.


Muslims and non-Muslims never manage to live together, unless one of them clearly dominate. Otherwise the result is a slaughter.

In general multiple identities always have a hard time coexisting together, unless one dominates or when they are united by a foreign threat. It was easier in the past because interactions were fewer (slower transportation and communication): two villages separated by 50km were two ends of the world. This is why we have seen a rise of ethnic cleansings in the modern age: there is a recreation of ethnic homogeneity everywhere.

Finally even if we could live together, a Muslim France would no longer be France. It would be yet another Muslim hell hole.

Ridiculous. You clearly have a prejudicial view of Muslims.

The VAST majority of Muslims are just as decent and accepting as anyone else.

The only reasons so many Middle Eastern nations are a mess are politics and poverty...it's little/nothing to do with religion.
 
Last edited:
Here's a question: do you think that the world is a more dangerous place since the fall of the Soviet Union?

No, the scale of violence in the US and USSR's proxy wars is unmatched by anything today. But 700,000 brown people killed by communists in Ethiopia is a lot less scary than 130 white people killed in Paris.
 
No, the scale of violence in the US and USSR's proxy wars is unmatched by anything today. But 700,000 brown people killed by communists in Ethiopia is a lot less scary than 130 white people killed in Paris.

What 700,000? 700,000 were displaced in African wars, but I don't know of anything on that scale there by Russians.
 
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.
 
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:
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:
* 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.
 
* 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.
 
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:
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:
Back
Top Bottom