Guess which country was voted 'biggest threat to world peace'

[Joe Republic]

Here's a clue: this is the U.S. General Discussion board.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I wish we actually gave a s*** about what other countries think of us.

[Middle-aged Europe]

I wish we actually gave a s*** about what other countries think of us.

In that case the percentage of people who think of the U.S. as the biggest threat to world peace would probably be even higher.

[tik 🪀✨]

World peace? World peace??

What a fantastic, irrational idea. The United States is not the "biggest threat" to this unachievable, ridiculous idea. They're the most likely to get involved in conflicts. There will be conflicts anyway, always, as a rule. Whether or not the United States plays a role in creating or worsening or solving a conflict is pretty much a given - we Americans have very influential hands. And having such power comes with great responsibility to always take some blame. We did too much, we didn't do enough, we instigated, we acted too late, whatever. It comes with the territory of being so influential in a more connected world.

I don't think the United States should really care a whole lot about what the citizens of any given country think of us. They should care about what the governments of these people think - that's what actually matters. When the US actually does put boots on the ground, they make a hell of an effort to paint themselves as the good guys to the citizens because only then does it actually matter.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And here I thought it was going to be the Most Satanic Republic of San Marino.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, duh.

Useless poll, anyway.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Not Israel? Surprising! It was going to be one of the two.

[Lumine]

I used to share that view three or four years ago, but now I think there are other threats which are much worse. The results don't surprise, though... (Although I would have expected Israel or North Corea in third or fourth place)

[IceSpear]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm absolutely crushed that Russia, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, and Uganda dislike us.

Plus, I bet the numbers were inflated by European hipsters.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

I figured Israel or India/Pakistan would be the biggest threat.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     It's sort of obvious that we are, within a certain definition. There are many countries more unstable and unpredictable, but no other country has the ability to wage war on the same scale that we do.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Countries aren't the biggest threats to world peace, the international ruling class is.

[© tweed]

I used to share that view three or four years ago, but now I think there are other threats which are much worse.

the US spends several times more on killing machines than any other country in the world.  feel free to re-evaluate your methodology.

[Lumine]

I used to share that view three or four years ago, but now I think there are other threats which are much worse.

the US spends several times more on killing machines than any other country in the world.  feel free to re-evaluate your methodology.

Indeed they do, but the difference is that until now they don't seem to be considering using nuclear weapons on enemies, which is not the case with North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel...

[© tweed]

I used to share that view three or four years ago, but now I think there are other threats which are much worse.

the US spends several times more on killing machines than any other country in the world.  feel free to re-evaluate your methodology.

Indeed they do, but the difference is that until now they don't seem to be considering using nuclear weapons on enemies, which is not the case with North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel...

the US has thousands of nuclear weapons, and has had them for decades, but is too noble to consider using them?

[Lumine]

I used to share that view three or four years ago, but now I think there are other threats which are much worse.

the US spends several times more on killing machines than any other country in the world.  feel free to re-evaluate your methodology.

Indeed they do, but the difference is that until now they don't seem to be considering using nuclear weapons on enemies, which is not the case with North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel...

the US has thousands of nuclear weapons, and has had them for decades, but is too noble to consider using them?

Noble? No, I'd say intelligent, given that at least they acknowledge that nuclear weapons are never going to be a good long term solution to most conflicts. I trust more a country with a policy of never striking first with nuclear weapons that the North Korean rethoric, or the Pakistan/Indian feud.

[pbrower2a]

Countries aren't the biggest threats to world peace, the international ruling class is.

Precisely.

The worst warmongers often speak on behalf of the "peace-loving people" that they allegedly represent.

War is profitable for elites -- unless the political order that serves them is overthrown and those elites are dispossessed.  War is good for corporate profits from steel-making to provisioning, let alone weapons manufacture. It's even good for bankers who get high-yield bonds of little likelihood of default so long as victory ensues. War is a marvelous excuse for throttling the interests of laborers on farms or in factories.

If war goes well, the cartels and trusts get new, captive markets in defeated countries -- and with direct colonization or the establishment of a puppet state, resources to loot for minimal cost and cheap labor to exploit to the fullest. Upon victory the agrarian interests of the victor might impose ruinous taxes upon freehold farmers who have no alternative but to submit to hereditary peonage.

War is a scam. Maybe the best way to stop war is to break the power of the traditional ruling elites -- break the trusts and cartels, open the market to international competition, do land reform that turns landless peasants into freehold farmers, and permit strong unions to form. Oh yes -- impose gender equity.      

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And here I thought it was going to be the Most Satanic Republic of San Marino.

What about Nieu and their amazing $10 million GDP?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I used to share that view three or four years ago, but now I think there are other threats which are much worse.

the US spends several times more on killing machines than any other country in the world.  feel free to re-evaluate your methodology.

Indeed they do, but the difference is that until now they don't seem to be considering using nuclear weapons on enemies, which is not the case with North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel...

the US has thousands of nuclear weapons, and has had them for decades, but is too noble to consider using them?

Noble? No, I'd say intelligent, given that at least they acknowledge that nuclear weapons are never going to be a good long term solution to most conflicts. I trust more a country with a policy of never striking first with nuclear weapons that the North Korean rethoric, or the Pakistan/Indian feud.

We're the only country to have actually used nukes offensively.
MacArthur wanted to nuke China.
Nixon wanted to nuke North Vietnam.

[Lumine]

I used to share that view three or four years ago, but now I think there are other threats which are much worse.

the US spends several times more on killing machines than any other country in the world.  feel free to re-evaluate your methodology.

Indeed they do, but the difference is that until now they don't seem to be considering using nuclear weapons on enemies, which is not the case with North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel...

the US has thousands of nuclear weapons, and has had them for decades, but is too noble to consider using them?

Noble? No, I'd say intelligent, given that at least they acknowledge that nuclear weapons are never going to be a good long term solution to most conflicts. I trust more a country with a policy of never striking first with nuclear weapons that the North Korean rethoric, or the Pakistan/Indian feud.

We're the only country to have actually used nukes offensively.
MacArthur wanted to nuke China.
Nixon wanted to nuke North Vietnam.

Indeed, and Truman and Kissinger/Haig realized how insane that was and MacArthur was fired and Nixon ignored.

[Sbane]

I used to share that view three or four years ago, but now I think there are other threats which are much worse.

the US spends several times more on killing machines than any other country in the world.  feel free to re-evaluate your methodology.

Indeed they do, but the difference is that until now they don't seem to be considering using nuclear weapons on enemies, which is not the case with North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel...

the US has thousands of nuclear weapons, and has had them for decades, but is too noble to consider using them?

Noble? No, I'd say intelligent, given that at least they acknowledge that nuclear weapons are never going to be a good long term solution to most conflicts. I trust more a country with a policy of never striking first with nuclear weapons that the North Korean rethoric, or the Pakistan/Indian feud.

I think India has already ruled out a first nuclear strike, though they may retaliate if Pakistan or China strikes first. The United States on the other hand hasn't. We wouldn't rule it out during the Iraq war IIRC.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The United States on the other hand hasn't. We wouldn't rule it out during the Iraq war IIRC.

IIRC, we wouldn't rule out a nuclear response to an Iraqi chemical attack.  As I recall, US policy is that we reserve the right to respond to weapon of mass destruction with a WMD of our choice, not the exact same one we were attacked with.

[Sbane]

The United States on the other hand hasn't. We wouldn't rule it out during the Iraq war IIRC.

IIRC, we wouldn't rule out a nuclear response to an Iraqi chemical attack.  As I recall, US policy is that we reserve the right to respond to weapon of mass destruction with a WMD of our choice, not the exact same one we were attacked with.

That is not true according to the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations written during the Bush Administration. According to it, a nuclear strike could be asked for " to stop potentially overwhelming conventional enemy forces", " to rapidly end a war on favorable US terms" and " to make sure US and international operations are successful". Sounds like during the Bush administration, a nuclear strike was on the table if things went bad even without the use of WMD's. Though to be fair, the policy has improved significantly under the Obama administration and more accurately reflects what you say the terms for use of Nuclear weapons are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_for_Joint_Nuclear_Operations

Only China and India seem to have a no-first strike policy, at least according to wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use

[Link]

Sounds like during the Bush administration, a nuclear strike was on the table if things went bad even without the use of WMD's.

No.

The Iraq war ended up being unpopular but it didn't start out that way.  Say what you will about Bush but I'm pretty sure one of the only reasons he got involved in Iraq was because he never thought in a million years he would need nukes.

And anyway who would you nuke in Iraq?  The massed forces were taken care of in pretty short order.  I really haven't analyzed the figures but when it was all said and done I'm pretty sure most of the US troop deaths in Iraq were from suicide bombers, IEDs, and suicides.  You really can't nuke your way out of that.

The US has something to lose.  If we drop a nuke on anyone we would become an instant pariah state.  I don't think any president wants to go down in history has they guy that pushed the button.  The same goes for China and Russia.  They are not going to drop nukes on anyone let alone us.  The Cold War is over.

[Sbane]

Sounds like during the Bush administration, a nuclear strike was on the table if things went bad even without the use of WMD's.

No.

The Iraq war ended up being unpopular but it didn't start out that way.  Say what you will about Bush but I'm pretty sure one of the only reasons he got involved in Iraq was because he never thought in a million years he would need nukes.

And anyway who would you nuke in Iraq?  The massed forces were taken care of in pretty short order.  I really haven't analyzed the figures but when it was all said and done I'm pretty sure most of the US troop deaths in Iraq were from suicide bombers, IEDs, and suicides.  You really can't nuke your way out of that.

The US has something to lose.  If we drop a nuke on anyone we would become an instant pariah state.  I don't think any president wants to go down in history has they guy that pushed the button.  The same goes for China and Russia.  They are not going to drop nukes on anyone let alone us.  The Cold War is over.

This is basically in response to someone who thinks India would drop a nuke without first being attacked by nukes (not True Federalist). I was just pointing out that it is the United States that hasn't committed to a no first strike policy. Of course, the chance of the US using a nuclear weapon without a nuclear strike by someone else is almost nil. The greatest chance is North Korea or Pakistan doing something like that. I don't think India should be included in that company, as opposed to some other members of this forum.

Also, I think there is a paternalistic attitude towards the rest of the world by the US as it relates to nuclear weapons. Of course I will be ignored on that point.