...In terms of the threat humanity presents itself.
2007-07-26 17:07:42 · 5 answers · asked by a m 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Not according to the dooms day clock
2007-07-26 17:10:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Somewhat. Its hard to compare very different threats. During the Cold War, we had a more stable situation in the sense that it was clearer who was on which side. There was the NATO/US camp vs. the Soviet camp. But the threat of destruction was larger in the sense a nuclear exchange could end life on earth if it was large enough.
Now there is more chaos with the lines blurred a lot more. One benefit of this chaotic world is that the threat of a massive nuclear war has fallen significantly. There are tensions between US/EU and the Russians, but nobody is seriously considering it a nuclear war waiting to happen.
2007-07-27 00:14:41 · answer #2 · answered by The Stylish One 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In some places for sure....but the reactionaries of the current GOP needed an outside enemy to maintain a 550 billion dollar military budget...no cold war, no need for 70 ton tanks and billion dollar bombers. Fortunately for them, the morons of the middle east gave the Bush Junta just the chance it needed to keep the military boondoggle going. Iraq....that's the ticket! And guess what, suckers? If these bums get re-elected you can look forward to another war after this one...that is if this one ever ends!
2007-07-27 00:42:47 · answer #3 · answered by Noah H 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. Things are worse.
Ending the Cold War is causing Global Warming. People think it is carbon, but it's not. It's the lack of cold from the ending of the Cold War.
Damn old Reagan. It's all his fault. Again. We need the Rooskies back.
2007-07-27 00:20:01 · answer #4 · answered by open4one 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They were improving until about 2001-2002.
2007-07-27 00:11:05 · answer #5 · answered by The Doctor 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋