Log in

No account? Create an account

Do you agree?



No country is a threat to world peace- although I might take a different view of the politicians, militaries, press barons and wealth hoarders of our various countries......
It depends what they mean by threat to peace. If they include 'Any conflict whatsoever that can be reasonably blamed on another country', then the US does deserve its place at the top because its economic policies aggressively destabilise much of the rest of the world and drive the creation and continuation of severe social unrest in many other nations. The rest of the list is then semi-reasonable based on a combination of similar issues and outright aggression, though Saudi Arabia should be higher.

If they mean 'Are raving doolally bananas liable to come rampaging over the border at any moment', then the US should still be on the list, but far, far down it.

Australia, Germany and the UK shouldn't be on the list at all on this metric (Australia are being utter bastards about refugees at the moment, but that is working to help Malaysian politicians with their campaigns, so it's unlikely to result in conflict).

Japan might still deserve a spot at the bottom for its ridiculous poking of China, Russia should be WAY, way up from where it is (possibly at the top), as should Somalia and Syria. Though Somalia as a threat to world peace is a very slow threat and more based on its potential as a terrorist training ground than as a spreading war zone. Central African Republic and Eastern Congo are both more terrifying in their capacity to draw others into their conflicts and Congo has been infinitely bloodier.

Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan do and don't deserve to be there: their national policies are not massively problematic for anyone not an Afghan woman, but as countries that have had strong terrorist movements thrive within their borders (in some cases allowed by those governments), they are very dangerous on a global scale. Fundamentalist religions of all stripes are very bad for peace. Saudi Arabia has similar issues.

North Korea is vastly more dangerous than China, and I think India should possibly be put ahead of China, too, simply because it has been the more politically dangerous country in the years since the Vietnam war.

Israel and Iran both deserve a place on the list based on the aggressive history of modern Israel and the nuclear capability or ambition of both states, I would say maybe very slightly above China, which has been quite sedate for some time, but below India and Russia, probably well below Russia. Definitely well below North Korea in both cases. With the new government in Iran, I think that the danger from each side is probably roughly equal, and probably lower than it was a year ago. Should the Iranian government change again, they can go back up the list, ahead of Israel.

The Palestinian territories shouldn't be on the list. I suspect that you will disagree with me on this one, but when looked at in actual terms of death and damage, they are piddling, and in terms of firepower and political influence, they are not really strong at all. They are a threat only to Israeli peace, and to Jordanian economic health. I suppose you could make a case for Jordan needing to remain strong and Palestine threatening this, but they are still a minor menace. Any suggestion that Israel's military might is all in response to Palestine is not reflected in reality.

South Korea also shouldn't be on the list. Its military structure is almost entirely defensive and any conflict it gets involved in will have been caused by North Korea. With a 1% possibility of it being caused by China run amok. Or Japan having utterly lost it.

I am very pleased to see that no one thought to put New Zealand or any Scandinavian country on the list, and surprised at the omission of Chechnya.

In truth, the biggest threats to world peace remain exactly as they have always been: religious violence and scarce resources. One reassuring thing is that the new Iranian government is leading debate on the Sunni/Shi'ite divide. Now if only governments would start treating water and arable land as priorities.
Thanks for that very full analysis.

Personally I would probably agree with the table as set out except I would put USA below N. Korea (5%)and the Palestinians at the same (5%).
Sadly, I do agree.
Although I don't agree with how low North Korea is. :o
Hugs, Jon

Who did the poll ask, do you know? And how many respondents?
Most of the world's downtrodden will always feel that the powerful are the biggest risk. I have to respectfully disagree - the powerful will, however, attempt to maintain the status quo, which often leads to "a breakdown in diplomacy".
It kinda depends what is meant by "peace".

If "peace" means "ignoring and making excuses for whatever harm people do to you and your allies", then the US has a fairly good record of this.

If "peace" means "never being the aggressor", then the US record is spotless, right up there with Israel.
If "peace" means "never being the aggressor", then the US record is spotless...

Maybe you should mention Japan, too. I mean, we don't have signed confessions from the guys in those airplanes either, in spite of any claims that we know where they were trained and financed.
Maybe you should mention Japan, too. I mean, we don't have signed confessions from the guys in those airplanes either, in spite of any claims that we know where they were trained and financed.

I have to ask, what are you even talking about!?
Honolulu, 1941.

Kind of sticks in most people's memories. I guess I jumped to conclusions there, sorry.
gee thanks poll takers
but don't come to the good old Uncle Sam when you want something - send me arms for my revolution - help me with my disaster - help me solve whatever problem is besetting me.
Uncle Sam is such a threat why would you want his help?

The biggest threat to world peace - people of any nation, any place, who think violence is the way to solve things. Those people exist everywhere.