In the future, what scenario scares you the most?

Question

And why?? Also, how do you see it affecting the United States??

Continued unrest in the Middle-East
China's Military build-up
Russia flexing its muscle
Pakistan/India conflict
Iran Nukes
No. Korea Nukes

Answer 1

Iran nukes.

But first:

Middle east has always had unrest, but that is a major problem, and its not unrelated to Iran with nukes, so these two together i would say. Also, if Iraq falls into a massive civil war after we leave, that is goignt o cause all kinds of problems. We wont just be able to ignore this one like we did with cambodia. Every american will see it in their energy bills, when they launch through the roof. But this isnt my biggest concern.

Russia is largely sabor rattling and only has power as long as oil prices stay high. A recession would kill that, so i dont see it as a long term threat.

China has a codependent economic relationship with the US and the rest of the west, They take military action, sanctions are thrown on them so quickly, and there eocnomic growth ends. And what the Chinese government really fears is uprisien by the masses, particuarly the rural regions. They will not do anything to harm their economic growth for the forseeable future.

Pakistan-India conflict - I think pakistan is a problem, but the conflict between the two has been put on a standstillf or the time being. Pakistan has its own internal problems and India is trying to continue its booming economic growth. Furthermore, both of these nations have to deal with the thought of mutually ensured destruction if a war began. Im more worried, not about a war, but if the PAkistani government collapses into anarky and nuclear weapons then fall into the wrong hands.

No Korea nukes - they do this for sabor rattling - to extort more international aide packages out of everyone. I doube they will actually use them, because there would be retaliation and they would be annilated.

So that leaves Iran. You have a country that is trying to use nuclear power to tip the chaotic middle east balance of power to their side. They and Saudi Arabia are the dominent powers in the region and they dont like each other (ones persian, ones arab, and ones Shiite, ones Sunni). Furthermore, you have a government that continuously supports terrorism and calls for Israels sestruction. If a weapon was used by a terrorist rather then via a launch vehiclle, that makes it even more difficult to determine the origin right at the spot. You cant fire any back. Tel-Aviv just blows up, or London, or New York, and your left wondering what to do.

Also, a lot of these terrorists and perhaps even Admudinajad himself dont care if they die as long as they kill infedells. He himself believes in a sect of Islam that believs that before the M'Adib (think i spelt that right) can come to Earth and establish the House of Islam on it (kind of the Islamic version of the rapture and return of Christ), armagedan has to occur first. (I may be off on the details, but thats the jist of it)

So you have people who now want/ dont mind destructive massive war. The entire mutually ensured destruction disincentives that prevented nuclear war all throught the cold war no longer appply. If you want destruction, you dont mind. So allowing Iran to have a nuke in which they could use themselves of give to terrorist groups to them use, is what I See as the single most dangerous threat right now.

What alsot has to be realized is the nature of the Iranian government. Most of power is in the office of the supreme leader and national security council. Historically, the preseident has been just a figure head. But Admudinajad is not from the theocracy liek most are, he is fromt he intelligence community and has a lot of allies there and withint he military. So the national security council is afraid of reining him in fear of another coup/ reveloution. So even if the majority of the peopel int he govervment dont want a nuclear war and the dicincetive works, there are many fragments compenentw within the government where you might be able to take action, like giving a weapon to a terrorist group without the concent of most of the state.

Furthermore, even though the report just camme out saying that the one program was shut down in 2003, people are missing hte bigger picture. First off, I dont know why we now take this one report to be valid, when our intelligence messed up on both 9-11 and Iraq, and all the other reports before that, just not from us, showed them making weapons. The Israelis and British contest our report. But lets assume the report is accuarte... it still agrees that Iran continues uranium enrichment, which is the hardest part. The effort needed to make a weaponwonce you have enriched uranium is the technically easiest part and the least time consuming, Its just a matter of electronics, not nuclear physics. So the stand must be made here. And dont tell me that the country sitting on one of the worlds largest oil reserves which is dealing with major internal economic problems is spending billions of dollars enriching uranium for the sole purpose of making power reactors.

Answer 2

Well, Iwouldn't say any "scare" me--but the one that would be of mmost concern would be an India/Pakistan conflict. That could well involve an exchange of nuclear weapons. The likely result of tha twould be to trigger a gneral conflict between India and severalof the more radical Muslim countries--onethat other nations, including the US, would have a great deal of difficulty not getting drawn into--in short,World War3.

The other scenarios: as to continued unrest in the Middle East. Sadly, that'sjsut something we have to live with--itisn't insoluable, but so far no one seems likely to step forwardandstart the kind of genuine economic development int he region that would address theunderlying problems.

Russia and China--andfor that matter NK and Iran--are not the threats the right wing keeps claiming they are. In the first place--as to NK andIran--if they did develop a deleverable nuclear weapon, they can't use them--not without incurring retaliation that would wipe them out. Their regimes may be "evil"--but they aren'tsuicidal. So that's a manageable problem. Russia is going to look out for their national interest--the only "flexing of their muscles" they aredoing is objecting to Bush's attempt to placemissles on their borders--and they are right. We didn'tlike it when theUSSR tried that back in 1963 (Cuban missle crisis).

China isNOT a threat. Period. First of all, they are notexpansionist, and that is a very deeply rooted part of their culture. They are going to give us a lot of economic competition in the future--but so what. So do a lot of other countries. Their size isn'timportant inthat regard--if size menatanything, They would have been economicleaders long ago--and a country like Britain could never have risen to be the world's economic powerhouse as it did in the 19th century. In tha tregard, it is quality (innovation, organization, etc.) that count,not size.

Answer 3

The Middle East has been fighting for longer than we have been a country.
China...some concern there.
Russia...Who cares...squash them like a bug if the mess with us. They have no muscle.
Pakistan/India...hope they wipe each other out.
Iran Nukes and N Korea nukes are the scariest on your list.

Socialist Hitlary Clinton or Barak "I have taken the threat of nuclear weapons off the table so come attack us" Obama being elected is scarier than any of your scenarios.

Answer 4

Hillary Clinton as Commander-in-Chief scares me most. It was Hillary that saw to it that Janet Reno was made Attorney General. That resulted in the worst reign of terror every foisted on American civilians by the Nation's law enforcement personnel. Read up on Waco, Ruby Ridge and Elian Gonzales and the community in Florida that tried to protect him.

It also resulted in the infamous "Wall" that prevented the CIA and the FBI from sharing information about terrorists. No matter how extreme this Attorney General behaved, no matter how she routinely ignored the Constitution, no matter how many men, women and children she was responsible for killing, she never lost her job or ever got a bad review.

The problem with Hillary is that she will be appointing people in key positions that will be detrimental to our security. They see our military as part of the problem. They think you can talk murderous terrorists out of attacking us. They see an armed citizenry as a threat to their power.

Hillary is wrong. Factually wrong, ethically wrong, morally wrong, militarily wrong, strategically wrong, tactically wrong, wrong in all of the most key ways to be Commander-in-Chief of the greatest military of the greatest country on the planet.

Merry Christmas!

Answer 5

China's Military build-up
Russia flexing its muscle
Iran Nukes

i wish bush could stay longer as president to solve all these things. He's doing a good job.

Answer 6

Russia. Because Russia stirs up the mess in India and Pakistan. they sell military tech to Iran and China. And they help keep the middle east nutty

Answer 7

Americans controling the world with their troubles

they want to invade more countries with their evil friends Frenchies and Londoners

they are making excuses like Iran/Korea nuclear just for the sake of another war

Russia+China+Iran unity will stop the Imperialism from spreading <(*_*)>

Answer 8

None of it worries me for another year, after that all of the above until whomever is elected proves they are qualified to deal with each scenario.

Answer 9

1. Alien Invasion and mandatory anal probes.
2. George W secretly cloned himself and runs the clone for President and is president for 8 more years as the clone is a different version of his brilliance.
3 Zombies.
4. All the other things you listed.

Answer 10

Another democrat president.