Vapymid

No, merely that they can't be trained properly and most will only play the role of cannon fodder in a war. I think you'll find that it is mostly the other way around. The US owes China US Dollars. If China destroys the US the value of the US dollars owed to China will become 0, the debt effectively written off. The Chinese are too shrewd to do something stupid like that. Regards

You can always use scientific notation to illustrate your point without breaking the screen If you dehumanise your opponent in your mind to such an extent you are guaranteed to always make mistakes in dealing with him. You can't gain anything if you start with an assumption that people whom you don't like are non-human aliens from another planet who will act in irrational way. Your seemingly rational action to preempt an imaginary imminent irrational move by your enemy will itself become totally irrational when your opponent will instead behave in a rational way, contrary to your expectations and putting you on back foot. Regards

There is a good write up on this on the BBC: How potent are North Korea's threats? Short version: US policy is to ignore NK whenever possible, Norks don't like to be ignored, Norks say and do things to attract attention. Regards

They are not alone in the world - they totally depend on China and to a much lesser extent on Russia. They also know where their Rolexes, champagne and pr0n DVDs are coming from... Regards

Of course, they are. Do you really think they will voluntarily exchange their lives of luxury for martyrdom? Regards

Oh, neither of those 2 can start a global nuclear war. If they attack they will be quickly wiped off the map in retaliation and that will be it. Only USA, Russia and China can have a sufficiently large scale nuclear war among them to degrade human civilisation significantly, but they won't do it. Regards

I also prefer to think that our failure to detect other civilisations is not a proof of the Fermi theory. The space is *big*. Local radio broadcasts would not be powerful enough to reach us without being directed straight at us, and there is very little chance that someone decided to shine a maser at us right when we listened. Also, it is possible that any civilisation (ours included) only broadcasts for a short period of time before switching to directed beams and optical communications. In addition, it would likely switch over to digital, which will likely be encrypted (for commercial reasons if not for anything else) and a properly encrypted signal should look very much like random noise. Then, there is the question of whether anyone sane enough would like to advertise his presence to the whole universe in the first place. A safer bet is to look but not be seen at least until you know reasonably well who or what might be out there... Finally, scientists discover strange things in cosmos practically on a daily basis, much of those remain unexplained and any of them may be some kind of a cosmic engineering artifact - which we are not able to recognise just yet. Regards

Alvin Lee died yesterday, unexpectedly. Sad... RIP. nk9_-3CT1f8 Regards

I am not as pessimistic about our prospects. I think to date humans faced lots of challenges but so far always rose to the occasion. I believe we should hurry up with our space expansion plans but I am tentatively encouraged by the recent developments (e.g. SpaceX successes, Tito's manned Martian mission announcement, private plans to explore asteroids for mining etc). We don't have much time though - we've had another warning just 3 weeks ago over Russia. Now, a 50km comet has been discovered on potentially collision course with Mars (1 in 600 chance of collision in October 2014 but the risk will probably be downgraded with further observations), so we better take it seriously... Regards

And mine is that we better pull our finger out and work on it before it's too late Regards

Nice! Also, meticulously programmed - someone put some effort in there. Here is a live interpretation by Rick Wakeman ("Jane Seymour" from the "6 Wives of Henry the 8th") iswDmpQwV5U Regards

Oh, when did I say that? All I am saying, and you can double check it by going through my previous posts, is that the occupying force bears responsibility for civilian casualties happening "on their watch". In the case of Iraq it is primarily the US and to a lesser degree UK and other "Coalition" countries. Again, all of this could and probably would have happened in Iraq "naturally", when Saddam's time was up, but the West was stupid enough to preempt it and get the blame in the process. Regards

I think Pest's No.3 is a real threat, which should be taken very seriously. No.2 is a remote possibility (has to be a man-made microorganism) but is very very unlikely to be an "extinction level" threat. Others I do not think of as an existential dangers, more like potentially very disruptive and costly but not terminal disasters. The real solution for Nos.2 and 3 is to make sure humans create self-sustaining populations off-planet. There is value in trying to predict from and prevent No.3 but the ultimate insurance is for humans to live more than in one place. Regards

Fr*ck me! They call it an arm. 2jvLalY6ubc Facing one like that on a battlefield would probably feel as if HL2 zombies were throwing barrels at you, plus, I'm sure this Big Dog now bites... Regards

Firstly, I was not saying whether or not US and UK need "anti-terrorist" road blocks etc., although, as a matter of fact, I agree with you that we don't (albeit with a slightly different alternative than that proposed by you). What I was saying was that similar measures, if introduced, can cause unrest even in our respective countries. I don't need to look hard for an example - remember the London riots in 2011, which were triggered by a police shooting of 1 person? Secondly, I did answer your other question. I can clarify it further if you tell me which part of it you didn't understand. Because your formulation of the initial question was quite presumptuous, you have to expect a broader answer that deals with the underlying subject, unless you are posting in Forum Games, maybe. Regards

I believe that would be covered by articles 6 (validity of the Convention during occupation), 27 (obligation to protect against violence, rape etc) and 64 (means to implement the said protection). Regards

No it just says "you make a mess - you are responsible for it and its consequences", is all. Regards

Yes, precisely. I can assure you that if Her Majesty's Government in the UK will try to introduce road blocks and searches, curfews and other stuff to "fight terrorism", they will have a major rebellion on their hands in no time at all. I am also sure the same will happen in the US before the White House can say the word "curfew". That is in people's nature, that's why we live in separate countries. Our country may be in a right mess but when an outsider comes he has no business telling us how to live. This comes from the instincts developed long before Homo Sapience even appeared as a species. You can see it at many levels in society - families, football club supporters, street gangs, corporations... Regards

As much as you would need would be too much for us, I can assure you. Such force would be the first in the world if it existed. They will have to use magic or some kind of Minority Report pre-cognition powers to do that because, normally, (depending on one's opinion) either the "terrorists" don't look like terrorists or everyone else looks like a terrorist in such circumstances. That is exactly the kind of things that recruits terrorists (aka freedom fighters). The more you do that the more they will come at you. I'm sure you played Half-Life 2 - when you see more Combine on the streets, does it make you have peaceful, lay-down-your-arms, peace-and-love-peace-and-love kind of feelings? But the civil war happened precisely when the Coalition forces already were in Iraq. And it actually started because the invasion destroyed the elements of state power that were keeping the civil war from starting. Regards

The Coalition never had the motivation to apply such effort - other than UK and US, most of them did not get any sizable commercial deals out of it and even for UK and US the situation is not very enticing. The taxpayers are footing the bill but get nothing in return. Also, the brutality needed to deal with the kind of insurrection happening in Iraq is not what the Western powers are ready to swallow - and thank god for that. Finally, as I tried to say earlier, foreign intervention in civil wars usually only provokes more violence. Russia is a prime example - when Entente countries tried to intervene after the October revolution even parts of the population opposing Bolsheviks turned against the invaders. Regards

It's irrelevant because we are leaving and they are staying - they've won. I am glad that we may finally agree on something. Of course, they know. The US (and NATO) position there is what's known as a "lame duck". Every death of a Western soldier from the date of the announcement of the imminent withdrawal is futile and totally unnecessary and only serves the purpose of saving face for the politicians in our countries. That actually infuriates me. Well, we are not talking about a war started by China or Burkina Faso. It was an American war, so we are talking about terrorism relative to America. Well, if believing in that brings you comfort - fine. Just don't try to test this principle on your own skin, that's all. That is the "Final Solution" isn't it. It sounds tempting and we, of course, know that even people who consider themselves civilised may be seduced by it. But it is in reality the ultimate failure. You don't solve the problem (of conflict resolution) by doing this and you don't learn *how* to solve such problems in the process. So it will happen again and again if you resort to it. Thankfully, the humanity seems to instinctively reject such "solutions" and would consolidate against anyone found trying to *overtly* use them. Technically - yes, but it would be a) pointless, b) expensive and c) politically suicidal. Regards

So, it is "let's them fight each other, so they won't bother us"? This sounds good but, in practice, usually backfires. Regards

It doesn't matter, according to the 4th Geneva Convention the occupying force is responsible for protection of civilian population during the occupation. Regards

Kao1QEjfgno Regards

More likely it will be a hard-line Sunni islamist regime, which will immediately set about exterminating the Alawite Shiites who are currently in power. There is no good outcome for Syria from this civil war regardless who wins. Regards