What country is the biggest threat to mankind?

[gowlerk 1,956]

According to some Americans North Korea is the greatest threat to all of mankind.

http://time.com/5044371/north-korea-terry-branstad-us-ambassador-china-xi-jinping-interview/?xid=homepage

I beg to differ. Of all the nations in the world, the good old USA clearly holds that distinction. What do you think?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Phil1111 943]

I assume that the provocative nature of the countries listed is inspired to provoke debate.

Only the US has a functioning justice system which is virtually free of political interference. Only the US has a constitution with actual checks and balances on its leaders. Which todays events clearly illustrate.

I would have put Iran on the list because it actively uses proxies to engage in war and terror. China has none of the aforementioned checks on the powers of its leadership. But acts more or less responsibly.

Thats just my opinion, but there is:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/01/u-s-power-and-influence-increasingly-seen-as-threat-in-other-countries/

Carry on.

[yoink 321]

gowlerk

I beg to differ. Of all the nations in the world, the good old USA clearly holds that distinction. What do you think?

I think that's tripe looking for a reaction... If you genuinely think the US is the biggest threat to humanity then you're as deluded as rush is.

NK? Maybe - they've got a nutter with nukes who is answerable to noone in charge or China possibly, due to their unbelievable pollution and CO2 emissions that'll probably doom us all.

[gowlerk 1,956]

I am looking for reaction. But the current top leadership is not why I feel the USA poses the greatest threat to mankind of all the nations on Earth. I'm not USA bashing, America is my second favourite nation. But only America has the most power to pose a global threat to the world.

What I'm really getting at is the hypocrisy of declaring NK to be a great threat. It does not have the power to be one.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Bob_Church 7]

yoink

***

I beg to differ. Of all the nations in the world, the good old USA clearly holds that distinction. What do you think?

I think that's tripe looking for a reaction... If you genuinely think the US is the biggest threat to humanity then you're as deluded as rush is.

NK? Maybe - they've got a nutter with nukes who is answerable to noone in charge or China possibly, due to their unbelievable pollution and CO2 emissions that'll probably doom us all.

China has dead rivers and cities where you can't see the sun at noon. And yet people act like it's a different planet and all of that poison will never get here.

[kallend 1,683]

Phil1111

Only the US has a functioning justice system which is virtually free of political interference.

EVERY member of the US Supreme Court is there on account of political affiliation. Ditto for most state supreme courts, and all judges in places where judges are elected. The AG is a political appointee, as are all the US Attorneys in the various states.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,280]

Phil1111

Only the US has a functioning justice system which is virtually free of political interference. Only the US has a constitution with actual checks and balances on its leaders.

Only within the US. The vast majority of mankind lives outside the US, and the rest of government has repeatedly shown a severe allergy to checking the power of the executive to do whatever the hell it wants with military power.

Quote

I would have put Iran on the list because it actively uses proxies to engage in war and terror.

Then the US has to be on the list as well.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Stumpy 256]

yoink

they've got a nutter with nukes who is answerable to noone in charge

That applies to more than one country on that list.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Stumpy 256]

Bob_Church

******

I beg to differ. Of all the nations in the world, the good old USA clearly holds that distinction. What do you think?

I think that's tripe looking for a reaction... If you genuinely think the US is the biggest threat to humanity then you're as deluded as rush is.

NK? Maybe - they've got a nutter with nukes who is answerable to noone in charge or China possibly, due to their unbelievable pollution and CO2 emissions that'll probably doom us all.

China has dead rivers and cities where you can't see the sun at noon. And yet people act like it's a different planet and all of that poison will never get here.

The difference being, the Chinese are VERY quickly working on their environmental footprint. The leadership in the US couldn't give two shits

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Phil1111 943]

kallend

***

Only the US has a functioning justice system which is virtually free of political interference.

EVERY member of the US Supreme Court is there on account of political affiliation. Ditto for most state supreme courts, and all judges in places where judges are elected. The AG is a political appointee, as are all the US Attorneys in the various states.

Thats true. BUT the US judiciary has to a large extent ruled based upon the constitution. With possible religious exceptions from time to time.

All countries have politics as a threat to equality, fairness and justice. Within the court process. Records of rulings counter to government actions, police actions and the actions of large special interest groups. In favor of the unrepresented, the weak and the vulnerable. Is the best indications of fairness within a justice system.

[Niki1 1]

I voted "Other". India has passed China as the #1 air polluter. The question was about all mankind. If we kill this planet we are all doomed.

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?

[jakee 1,280]

Phil1111

Thats true. BUT the US judiciary has to a large extent ruled based upon the constitution. With possible religious exceptions from time to time.

Irrelevant to the 95% of mankind that doesn't live within the US, because the US judiciary has no influence at all over what the US gov't chooses to do to them.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Phil1111 943]

jakee

***Thats true. BUT the US judiciary has to a large extent ruled based upon the constitution. With possible religious exceptions from time to time.

Irrelevant to the 95% of mankind that doesn't live within the US, because the US judiciary has no influence at all over what the US gov't chooses to do to them.

You do know that the title and subject of this thread is "What country is the biggest threat to mankind? " and the poll lists only four specific countries by name?

Since most countries courts tend to limit their jurisdiction to their citizens and/or unlawful conduct committed within their borders.

Independent courts with respects of individual rights tend to limit the dangerous actions of governments. Or leaders with dangerous international ideologies.

You seem to be throwing red herrings in my direction.

[gowlerk 1,956]

I'm not asking what country is the biggest threat to individuals or groups. I'm not asking what country is better or worse to live in. I am asking what country poses a potential threat to ALL OF HUMANITY. I consider the answer obvious and I only pose it because of the outrageous rhetoric coming from US diplomats and officials about the threat posed by North Korea.

There are only two main threats posed at this level by any one. One is the slow long term threat of climate warming and other pollution. The other is the threat of fusion bombs. No country has ever used a fusion bomb, one has used a fission bomb.

The threat posed by NK is that their actions could start an exchange of warheads. But it takes two or more to dance.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[jakee 1,280]

Quote

Since most countries courts tend to limit their jurisdiction to their citizens and/or unlawful conduct committed within their borders.

That's an incomplete sentence.

Since most countries [sic] courts tend to limit their jurisdiction to their citizens and/or unlawful conduct committed within their borders... what?

How does that stop those countries being a threat to mankind as a whole?

Quote

Independent courts with respects of individual rights tend to limit the dangerous actions of governments.

The dangerous actions of governments to their own citizens. not to everyone else's citizens.

Quote

You seem to be throwing red herrings in my direction.

Bringing up the courts is a red herring. What court has ever stopped the US from going to war? What court is going to stop Trump if he gets into a nuclear pissing match with Kim?

(Ok, he might be impeached for obstruction of justice before that happens, but that would be a coincidence.)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Phil1111 943]

A person should not confuse an individual who uses bluster, false bravado and bellicose statements designed to intimidate. With real aggression.

Mr. Kim knows, as did his father before him, that the survival of his regime is all that matters. That the US provides a easy scapegoat for the failures and demands of the regime.

Even though the US would destroy Kim, his regime and N. Korea in a nuclear war. That the US would all but destroy N. Korea in a conventional war. The cost in lives of South Koreans would be in the 100's of thousands. The cost to the US financially would be enormous, stunning. Perhaps several trillion dollars.

The back and forth between Kim and trump. Are merely two ego's each acting out a respective role for largely domestic audiences.

A threat to mankind is a regime that is not subject to the restrictions and oversight that democracies provide. That independent courts and a free press provides. Together with a imperialist motivation.

Russia is a mild threat. Putin just wants the US to still be a bogyman for domestic purpose. As long as the kleptocracy can continue and no one touches his offshore billions. Why upset the ox cart. He has mild imperial ideologies.

[gowlerk 1,956]

I agree with most of what you are saying about the current situation regarding the show being put on by Little Rocket Man and The Dotard. I'm not talking so much about today or tomorrow. I'm talking about what nation poses a serious long term threat to all of the world. If any.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[jakee 1,280]

Phil1111

A threat to mankind is a regime that is not subject to the restrictions and oversight that democracies provide. That independent courts and a free press provides. Together with a imperialist motivation.

Courts and oversight do not restrict imperialist motivations.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[gowlerk 1,956]

jakee

***A threat to mankind is a regime that is not subject to the restrictions and oversight that democracies provide. That independent courts and a free press provides. Together with a imperialist motivation.

Courts and oversight do not restrict imperialist motivations.


And no court can recall missiles after they are launched.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Phil1111 943]

jakee

Quote

Since most countries courts tend to limit their jurisdiction to their citizens and/or unlawful conduct committed within their borders.

That's an incomplete sentence.

Since most countries [sic] courts tend to limit their jurisdiction to their citizens and/or unlawful conduct committed within their borders... what?

How does that stop those countries being a threat to mankind as a whole?

Quote

Independent courts with respects of individual rights tend to limit the dangerous actions of governments.

The dangerous actions of governments to their own citizens. not to everyone else's citizens.

Quote

You seem to be throwing red herrings in my direction.

Bringing up the courts is a red herring. What court has ever stopped the US from going to war? What court is going to stop Trump if he gets into a nuclear pissing match with Kim?

(Ok, he might be impeached for obstruction of justice before that happens, but that would be a coincidence.)

If you think the US and trump are the biggest threat to mankind. Why don't you just come out and say it. Then support that proposition with specific examples.

While trump could start a war to distract from his problems. Congress could cut funding immediately. Russia, China, Iran and N. Korea don't have a court system for which a party could make a claim against the political leadership and be successful. In addition none have the checks of other levels of equal governance. To limit a decision made by one political leader to enact war without the endorsement of other, free thinking, elected officials.

Courts limit actions of no other country and no political party. That are mentioned in this thread with one exception. The US. Congress limits the actions of a president through a free vote. No other country(mentioned in this thread) has this equality of power. None of the other countries discussed in this thread has a constitution that is not flexible depending on the will of its leaders.

If you and gowlerk think trump is the biggest threat to mankind. Just come out and say it. Support your position Vis-à-vis the other countries discussed.

trump will be gone in 3-1/4 years. Or less. Putin, Kim, the Chinese communist ruling politburo will remain. No action by trump with the sole exception of a nuclear war could not be undone by congress, shortly. Or by a different administration when he leaves office.

That would include his environmental deregulation. Together with any other of his actions. With regards to China, Russia, N. Korea. Their regimes would likely just carry on. The title of this thread is once again "What country is the biggest threat to mankind?"

Is the threat immediate? The world stock markets and bond markets certainly don't think so.

Is the threat, war on the Korean peninsula? Is that the threat to mankind? Certainly the UN doesn't seem too worked up about it. South Korea doesn't seem too concerned.

trump is nothing less than fly poop on a window which seems to distract some here. From the view of what lies through the window. Its called a distraction.

[gowlerk 1,956]

Gowlerk does not think Trump is a great threat. America is a great threat with or without him. No other nation has as much potential to do as much damage

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[jakee 1,280]

Quote

If you think the US and trump are the biggest threat to mankind. Why don't you just come out and say it.

I don't know whether or not I think it. On the one hand you are the country with the greatest ability to destroy global civilisation, and AFAIK the one that participates in more international conflicts than any other and projects its military might around the world more than any other. On the other hand there are less stable countries with access to far smaller, but still potentially destructive arsenals. It's tricky.

What I do know is that your argument that the US isn't a global threat because the courts make it treat its own citizens fairly is a red herring. It's irrelevant to the rest of mankind.

Quote

No action by trump with the sole exception of a nuclear war could not be undone by congress, shortly.

So you're saying Congress can undo anything Trump does, except the one thing he can do that would pose the biggest threat to mankind?

And you think that helps your argument?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Bob_Church 7]

People have decided to be afraid of Trump launching a nuclear attack and are going to be, despite the fact that he can't. The President, any President, of the US can prevent the use of nukes or authorize their use. The football doesn't have a launch button in it, but you'd never know it hearing people yell about it. What I can't figure out is why people feel the need to create things to be frightened of.

[Phil1111 943]

jakee

Quote

If you think the US and trump are the biggest threat to mankind. Why don't you just come out and say it.

I don't know whether or not I think it. On the one hand you are the country with the greatest ability to destroy global civilisation, and AFAIK the one that participates in more international conflicts than any other and projects its military might around the world more than any other. On the other hand there are less stable countries with access to far smaller, but still potentially destructive arsenals. It's tricky.

What I do know is that your argument that the US isn't a global threat because the courts make it treat its own citizens fairly is a red herring. It's irrelevant to the rest of mankind.

Quote

No action by trump with the sole exception of a nuclear war could not be undone by congress, shortly.

So you're saying Congress can undo anything Trump does, except the one thing he can do that would pose the biggest threat to mankind?

And you think that helps your argument?

Presumably a threat is:

1. Immediate and present, or
2. Some type of building or future threat.

In addition the threat is "the biggest to mankind".

-Russia has more nuclear weapons. In addition they are larger by yield(generally 25% larger) and dirtier because they are older designs.
http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/nuclear-arsenals/

-Most of the conflicts that the US participated in recently were under UN, NATO and/or co-coalition, partnerships, participation, resolutions or under the agreements with host nations for defense. Perhaps you could name US precipitated conflicts which were either unlawful by international rights of self defense. Or unjust by principal?

-I suggest that the recent Libyan conflict is a good example of how the US gets blamed. For helping secure the freedom of a people from tyranny. Most of the EU was asking for US airpower to help get rid of him. Obama was reluctant to get involved.

-Its easy to blame the US for conflict. But how many tin pot dictators think twice before expanding economic, resource, military interests. Because of US Political and military power.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2016/04/25/the-u-s-cant-afford-to-end-its-global-leadership-role/
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1631.html

- Only the US has led against China's island building campaign in the South China Sea.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/10/senators-to-trump-show-resolve-with-beijing-in-south-china-sea/

https://www.csis.org/programs/southeast-asia-program/south-china-sea-high-resolution

As I have suggested and stated several times. Other countries operate unhindered under the sole direction of leadership without any checks or balances on either national or international actions. You seem to think that leaders just become unhinged and go to war.

Study the history of war. You will learn that dictators, tyrants and those with imperial ambitions. Start by limiting domestic opposition. Controlling the domestic narrative on who is an enemy. President Putin is exactly in that position now. He has invaded Ukraine(by proxy), annexed Crimea, invaded Georgia, threatened the Baltic states and operates with impunity.

Only when a leader developes aspirations beyond his borders can they realistically threaten "mankind". Courts and equal but legitimate arms of good governance control these actions.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/obamas-worst-mistake-libya/478461/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/23/europe/russia-military-adventures-baltics/index.html

IMO this discussion lacks sufficient breath of international interests, war and history. I will concede that US leadership finds too many instances where US interests need a military solution.

[billvon 2,476]

>China has dead rivers and cities where you can't see the sun at noon. And yet people act like
>it's a different planet and all of that poison will never get here.

It WAS here. (Google Donora, PA and Cuyahoga River) We realized we had to fix it, and we did. China has realized the same thing, but they're about 40 years behind us.