Bitcoin Forum
October 16, 2021, 11:41:39 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: World War III and BTC  (Read 7348 times)
Malawi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100


One bitcoin to rule them all!


View Profile
May 18, 2013, 02:33:04 PM
 #41

Quote
4. If Israel attacks Iran. US and Russia possible china will be drag  to war because its one of their biggest oil supplier.

Meh.
Doubt Israel will do any first attack, they have enough problems as it is, and Iran knows that US will step in if they attack.
If there were to become a conflict, russia might support with equipment, but they will get a deal to get their oil anyways.
Don't think US would risk being tangled up in another war if they can avoid it.

Israel is a very small country, it is smaller than most states in the USA and is surrounded by tons of enemy countries, just open the middle east map to see the sizes. Now, with that in mind, you need to look at the history of Israel and the Jewish people. Every generation there is some nation, at least one, that wants to annihilate all Jews from the face of the earth, this is why a country that is

Ao what you are saying is that Israel needs to attack all neighbouring countries before they do?

BitCoin is NOT a pyramid - it's a pagoda.
1634427699
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1634427699

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1634427699
Reply with quote  #2

1634427699
Report to moderator
1634427699
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1634427699

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1634427699
Reply with quote  #2

1634427699
Report to moderator
1634427699
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1634427699

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1634427699
Reply with quote  #2

1634427699
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1634427699
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1634427699

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1634427699
Reply with quote  #2

1634427699
Report to moderator
btc237ftw
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 157
Merit: 100


View Profile
May 18, 2013, 03:43:44 PM
 #42

Quote
Ao what you are saying is that Israel needs to attack all neighbouring countries before they do?

No, I'm not saying Israel is to attack "all neighboring countries", only those proving to have the agenda and will and capabilities to destroy Israel and also as a last resort.

Think about it, if you live in the USA and North Korean threatens to destroy the USA, the USA will "ask" the same questions:
1. Are the serious about this threat - do they have an Agenda of actually doing such a thing?
2. Do they have the capabilities to do such a thing, or are they aiming to get such capabilities?
3. Will they act once they have such capabilities?

So, in the USA case its much harder to destroy because of the size of the united states and also because of the distance, and also it's harder to "imagine" one will actually "Act" (3) because of the USA military power is so overwhelming and can avenge even after a strike hits it. But what if there was a bomb that can destroy ALL of the USA in 1 strike? would the USA allow North Korean to hold such a bomb? Would they allow North Korean to try and get to it underground - all the while threatening to annihilate the USA? Fortunately for the USA there is no such a single-bomb yet, but a country the size of Israel can be destroyed by a single bomb these days..
So in Israel's case, passive defensive measures are of course also taken into consideration, such as:
1. Once a country/Terror organization has the means to act, can anti-missile defense work efficiently enough to defend the Israel?
2. Do Israel have enough Air-dominance to remove threats before happening, i.e while launching missiles?
3. Can Israel take such hits without being critically damaged, wounded or even completely destroyed or crippled and thus vulnerable to other threats? (etc) and what is the rate of death from potential attacks?

But once you start answering these questions, you might find yourself in a position where all  of Israel's (or any country) measures start to fail and the potential damage is too high, then the defensive measures must become active measurements, such as politically trying to stop movement of troops or arms, moving army to locations where it shows you will act if the other side prepares to launch attacks, and even strike against critical points of "balance changing abilities".

Those "balance changing" "things", such as mass-destruction weapons that are being sent to Terrorists are called "balance changing" because up until the Terrorists or the ones want to kill others get to such capabilities, there's a balance between the passive defensive measures and the threats.
This balance is often called "cold war" or "peaceful time" where in fact it is not peaceful at all, but an arm-race.
Once the line of "balance changing capabilities" is crossed,  the balance is broken and passive-defenses become less and less effective sometimes over time and sometimes at-once. Then we get to the active measurements where at the top of the line we see military action to prevent the other side of harming your country.
(Such as defensive strikes to remove the balance-changing capabilities from the world).
Such calculations are different from country to country, according to location, demographics, capabilities, allies, resources, current threats, future potential threats and many more factors.

So, as you can see, we are not talking about a Strike against Syria, but against Hizballah trying to get Syrian weapons of mass-destructions. Same goes for Iran. these are "balance changing weapons" or "capabilities."

To summarize:
No, I am not saying Israel needs to attack all neighboring countries before they do". I'm saying Israel, just like any other country, needs to evaluate the threats the country is facing and measure them according to capabilities of passive defense, allies, politics and active defensive measurements.
Once done the calculation, just like any country, Israel needs to defend itself against threats that can actually harm it. Again, I'm not talking about just threats, but a real agenda+will+capabilities.

(No is speaking about Israel attacking Turkey, or Jordan, or Egypt for example.... which are all neighboring countries).
TomUnderSea
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
May 18, 2013, 08:09:53 PM
 #43

...

Try draw as many similarities as you like but... Can any major power even survive without importing nowdays? They are consuming everything from food to metal and only perhaps Russia has the diversity of resources to piss off the world. Even then they dont have the infrastructure to utilize it.

Todays super powers simply cant afford to cut trade relations. Especially since their enemies are their greatest trading partners.

If the super powers of today _were_ able to survive with out importing, we would probably be safer.  Japan attacked the US and UK because they could not survive with out US and UK oil.  Truly independent super powers would not be forced to compete for resources on the world market.  The argument that our world powers are too interconnected to go to war ignores the competition inherent in that interconnection and the risk of conflict rising from that competition.

Three of the five cases listed by OP are obviously resource competition (China - Japan, China - Taiwan, N. Korea - S. Korea).  I submit the fourth case, Israel - Syria, can be traced to water and land competition.  The last case, Israel - Iran is a more interesting problem since it is not obviously about resources but more along the lines of power projection and status.  Those can be tied back to resource access.


In any case, trade and resource competition seem to be more likely to lead to war than prevent war.

Every little BTC helps.  14P3TfbttSpQ3BxUjwrUrmNU6F4mB9aMS5
Dasneko
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 82
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 18, 2013, 08:15:32 PM
 #44

...

Try draw as many similarities as you like but... Can any major power even survive without importing nowdays? They are consuming everything from food to metal and only perhaps Russia has the diversity of resources to piss off the world. Even then they dont have the infrastructure to utilize it.

Todays super powers simply cant afford to cut trade relations. Especially since their enemies are their greatest trading partners.

If the super powers of today _were_ able to survive with out importing, we would probably be safer.  Japan attacked the US and UK because they could not survive with out US and UK oil.  Truly independent super powers would not be forced to compete for resources on the world market.  The argument that our world powers are too interconnected to go to war ignores the competition inherent in that interconnection and the risk of conflict rising from that competition.

Three of the five cases listed by OP are obviously resource competition (China - Japan, China - Taiwan, N. Korea - S. Korea).  I submit the fourth case, Israel - Syria, can be traced to water and land competition.  The last case, Israel - Iran is a more interesting problem since it is not obviously about resources but more along the lines of power projection and status.  Those can be tied back to resource access.


In any case, trade and resource competition seem to be more likely to lead to war than prevent war.
What I mean is that countries like America might not survive long enough to fight seriously if they get cut off from certain key trading partners. Especially food and oil.
an0nymous
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 10
Merit: 0



View Profile WWW
May 18, 2013, 08:18:42 PM
 #45

100 years after, burned communication save with only miracles help part of internal network, mining is a pleasure of richest peoples, latest block is found in one of the closed underground cities, and nobody still, no know who really was this Satoshi.....
Malawi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100


One bitcoin to rule them all!


View Profile
May 18, 2013, 08:28:39 PM
 #46

Quote
Ao what you are saying is that Israel needs to attack all neighbouring countries before they do?

No, I'm not saying Israel is to attack "all neighboring countries", only those proving to have the agenda and will and capabilities to destroy Israel and also as a last resort.

So they should only be attacking Iran and Syria then... All in the name of peace and a final solution offc.

BitCoin is NOT a pyramid - it's a pagoda.
TomUnderSea
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
May 18, 2013, 08:53:55 PM
 #47

I honestly wonder exactly how many countries will jump in to aid America. I get the feeling that most are tired of their bullshit. Its not like they are going to turn on America but exactly how willing are they to help?

I would say a better question is will the US act to protect those countries who are not supporting the US today?

It is only recently that the US has taken an "aggressive" position on the world stage.  Up until WW2, the US was isolationist to the Western Hemisphere.  In the words of Fowler, "Pushy Americans, always showing up late for every war. Overpaid, oversexed, and over here."  Getting the US to come to the Great War and then to WWII was not easy.  Convincing the US to stay engaged in Europe following WWII was not easy either.  Following the end of the Cold War, there was significant domestic pressure to "bring the boys home".  There is no guarantee that the US would jump in to aid yet another foreign nation, especially given that we are sick and tired of being played for the bad guy by the same ass-hats we save.

Next time some fascist, socialist or theocratic dictatorship decides he wants to occupy your homeland, rape your women, steal your wealth and burn your crops remember that there is no guarantee the "merikans" will show up.  We don't have to.  We are safe and secure behind our oceans.  So, before you chose to bad mouth the "merikan" go visit the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial and ask yourself what the world would be like without "merikans" on the beaches of Nomandy.

Good luck facing the Russian bear and the Chinese dragon without the "merican" eagle.

Every little BTC helps.  14P3TfbttSpQ3BxUjwrUrmNU6F4mB9aMS5
TomUnderSea
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
May 18, 2013, 09:04:32 PM
 #48

...
What I mean is that countries like America might not survive long enough to fight seriously if they get cut off from certain key trading partners. Especially food and oil.

Food

The US exports food.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_power

China and Russia depend on food imports.



Oil

The US oil production is rising and will soon exceed domestic consumption.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/14/us-oil-surge-transforms-markets-undercuts-opec/

China is a net importer of oil.



So, explain to me again why the "mericans" should bother to come to the assistance of yet another ungrateful nation "over there"?

Every little BTC helps.  14P3TfbttSpQ3BxUjwrUrmNU6F4mB9aMS5
Dasneko
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 82
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 18, 2013, 09:07:29 PM
 #49

I honestly wonder exactly how many countries will jump in to aid America. I get the feeling that most are tired of their bullshit. Its not like they are going to turn on America but exactly how willing are they to help?

I would say a better question is will the US act to protect those countries who are not supporting the US today?

It is only recently that the US has taken an "aggressive" position on the world stage.  Up until WW2, the US was isolationist to the Western Hemisphere.  In the words of Fowler, "Pushy Americans, always showing up late for every war. Overpaid, oversexed, and over here."  Getting the US to come to the Great War and then to WWII was not easy.  Convincing the US to stay engaged in Europe following WWII was not easy either.  Following the end of the Cold War, there was significant domestic pressure to "bring the boys home".  There is no guarantee that the US would jump in to aid yet another foreign nation, especially given that we are sick and tired of being played for the bad guy by the same ass-hats we save.

Next time some fascist, socialist or theocratic dictatorship decides he wants to occupy your homeland, rape your women, steal your wealth and burn your crops remember that there is no guarantee the "merikans" will show up.  We don't have to.  We are safe and secure behind our oceans.  So, before you chose to bad mouth the "merikan" go visit the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial and ask yourself what the world would be like without "merikans" on the beaches of Nomandy.

Good luck facing the Russian bear and the Chinese dragon without the "merican" eagle.

Actually we got an eagle already. The Black Eagle that almost conquered the world during WW2 and WW1. Germany. Besides dont get me started on what America did and did not do during WW2. I dont want to crush your dreams.

The thing is... No one hates us so why would we be attacked? On the other hand everyone hates you so your a prime target. Remember 9/11? Yeah... your the one they want.
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003



View Profile
May 18, 2013, 09:12:38 PM
 #50

snip

Good points; hell, America has so much food, it has to burn it; it even pays farmers to stop farming, because there's too much fucking food.

But if America was cut off from China, who would make all those little plastic figurines?

TomUnderSea
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
May 18, 2013, 09:17:05 PM
 #51

...

Actually we got an eagle already. The Black Eagle that almost conquered the world during WW2 and WW1. Germany. Besides dont get me started on what America did and did not do during WW2. I dont want to crush your dreams.

The thing is... No one hates us so why would we be attacked? On the other hand everyone hates you so your a prime target. Remember 9/11? Yeah... your the one they want.

You are welcome to submit to that black eagle again, if that is your preference.

As for my dreams about what America did and did not do during WW2, bring it on.  You might be surprised about my knowledge of military history.  Not just US military history but world military history.  Let's just call it a hobby of mine.


I remember 9/11.


The fact that the US is targeted by terrorists correlates with the US being involved in the world "over there".  No US presence, no US target.


Tell me again, why should those "merikans" save your ass the next time it is in a sling?



Every little BTC helps.  14P3TfbttSpQ3BxUjwrUrmNU6F4mB9aMS5
TomUnderSea
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
May 18, 2013, 09:19:21 PM
 #52

snip

Good points; hell, America has so much food, it has to burn it; it even pays farmers to stop farming, because there's too much fucking food.

But if America was cut off from China, who would make all those little plastic figurines?

Not a problem.  We cut off food and oil imports to China until they give us as many of those little plastic figurines as we want.

This points out how easy that would be.



Every little BTC helps.  14P3TfbttSpQ3BxUjwrUrmNU6F4mB9aMS5
Borisz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 251



View Profile
May 18, 2013, 09:22:29 PM
 #53

Interesting to ready replies. More interesting to see how fast it went off-topic.
whiskthecat
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 18, 2013, 09:31:13 PM
 #54

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Amt9mLvQM5w
Anon136
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1216



View Profile
May 18, 2013, 09:36:01 PM
 #55

People never know that they are in a world war in the early stages of that war. Its all up to this historians. I suspect though that historians may mark this -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP1Za-xu8r0 as the beginning of world war 3.

Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041
If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited?
Dasneko
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 82
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 18, 2013, 09:37:25 PM
 #56

...
What I mean is that countries like America might not survive long enough to fight seriously if they get cut off from certain key trading partners. Especially food and oil.

Food

The US exports food.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_power

China and Russia depend on food imports.



Oil

The US oil production is rising and will soon exceed domestic consumption.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/14/us-oil-surge-transforms-markets-undercuts-opec/

China is a net importer of oil.



So, explain to me again why the "mericans" should bother to come to the assistance of yet another ungrateful nation "over there"?

Remind me again how much of that food power you got there that is actually consumed by people and not wasted on cattle?
Regarding the Oil. Perhaps I was wrong about the supply but you will still run into allot of problems trust me.

Alright *Cracks his fingers* What was the largest role America played during WW2? What is the role we have to thank you for? The arms dealer. You took the money, produced the weapons and equipment then got rich. Fair enough. But what have you to be proud of? That your troops arrived to Europe equipped for WW1? That some of your troops had British tin can helmets from WW1 all through WW2? The "Ronson" tank that never failed to light up after the first strike? There are plenty of stories of how entrenched Germans only got overwhelmed because you had more burning tanks then they had anti tank rounds.

You hardly got involved on the West front and even then the war was on the East front with 80 to 65% of the Nazi army fighting the Russians (the number went down when they got crushed and moved a bit to engage the west)

Then we have the "largest naval war" in WW2... In a land based conquest thats not a very hard title to get btw so good job. Your navy and air force fiercely engaged crazy Japanese soldiers with planes made out of wood. Seriously aside from their navy and motivation there was nothing exceptional about the Japanese during WW2 and dont come to me with the kamikaze bullshit. All it did was give you 3 hours of repair woopdedooo. Then you became the first country to use a Nuke (2 to be exact) against another country. On hindsight not that great of an idea if you ask me MR annihilator of citizens. Seriously talk about throwing stones in a glass house with the accusations against nazi war crimes.

Shall i go on? Perhaps you want to talk about Omaha beach? How about the golden age after the war fueled from the spoils of war? Id love to talk about how you fire bombed cities also.
TomUnderSea
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
May 18, 2013, 09:59:38 PM
 #57

...
What I mean is that countries like America might not survive long enough to fight seriously if they get cut off from certain key trading partners. Especially food and oil.

Food

The US exports food.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_power

China and Russia depend on food imports.



Oil

The US oil production is rising and will soon exceed domestic consumption.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/14/us-oil-surge-transforms-markets-undercuts-opec/

China is a net importer of oil.



So, explain to me again why the "mericans" should bother to come to the assistance of yet another ungrateful nation "over there"?

Remind me again how much of that food power you got there that is actually consumed by people and not wasted on cattle?


http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0712/top-agricultural-producing-countries.aspx
Figure it out for yourself.



Regarding the Oil. Perhaps I was wrong about the supply but you will still run into allot of problems trust me.


So rather than reference any kind of fact, you are asking me to take your word?   Roll Eyes




Alright *Cracks his fingers* What was the largest role America played during WW2? What is the role we have to thank you for? The arms dealer. You took the money, produced the weapons and equipment then got rich. Fair enough. But what have you to be proud of? That your troops arrived to Europe equipped for WW1? That some of your troops had British tin can helmets from WW1 all through WW2? The "Ronson" tank that never failed to light up after the first strike? There are plenty of stories of how entrenched Germans only got overwhelmed because you had more burning tanks then they had anti tank rounds.

You hardly got involved on the West front and even then the war was on the East front with 80 to 65% of the Nazi army fighting the Russians (the number went down when they got crushed and moved a bit to engage the west)

Then we have the "largest naval war" in WW2... In a land based conquest thats not a very hard title to get btw so good job. Your navy and air force fiercely engaged crazy Japanese soldiers with planes made out of wood. Seriously aside from their navy and motivation there was nothing exceptional about the Japanese during WW2 and dont come to me with the kamikaze bullshit. All it did was give you 3 hours of repair woopdedooo. Then you became the first country to use a Nuke (2 to be exact) against another country. On hindsight not that great of an idea if you ask me MR annihilator of citizens. Seriously talk about throwing stones in a glass house with the accusations against nazi war crimes.

Shall i go on? Perhaps you want to talk about Omaha beach? How about the golden age after the war fueled from the spoils of war? Id love to talk about how you fire bombed cities also.

Feel free to continue.  The occasional source document would improve your presentation.

Just keep speaking English since it proves my point every time you open your mouth.

Here, let me help you with that rant...


Every little BTC helps.  14P3TfbttSpQ3BxUjwrUrmNU6F4mB9aMS5
Dasneko
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 82
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 18, 2013, 10:33:02 PM
 #58


Feel free to continue.  The occasional source document would improve your presentation.

Just keep speaking English since it proves my point every time you open your mouth.

Here, let me help you with that rant...


Of course how silly of me. Pictures are always a pretty sight.
For example this aerial picture of Omaha beach after it was "won". Notice the craters from the 13000 bombers the americans insisted to use during the landings. Oh wait... there is none. All the bombs missed and took out a few land mines inland instead which alerted the Germans if anything.

Great job assaulting one of the longest beaches in France during low tide btw.

Even worse your ass was saved that day because your special forces failed their mission to capture an (empty) gun emplacement on a nearby bluff. The troops that won Omaha beach should never even have been there if their friends had not fuck things up royally. Victory through incompetence?

Want a picture of the most flammable tank in WW2?

Still nice and toasty. American tax money burning before your eyes.

No lets get serious for a moment. Cold hard facts incoming:
Casualties for Western front (This is you guys Cheesy )
Allied: 2,905,420–3,043,860 casualties
Axis: 997,386–1,000,256 casualties
Great job guys you really showed them!
The germans only had like a 3-1 Kill /death ratio while full on losing. Thats not so bad right? Luckily the Russians saved your ass by occupying the vast majority of the German army from stomping your ass into oblivion.
Smerks
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 15
Merit: 0


View Profile
May 18, 2013, 10:56:55 PM
 #59

it would likely cease to exist
btc237ftw
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 157
Merit: 100


View Profile
May 19, 2013, 12:17:13 AM
 #60

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/world_news/Middle_East/article1261403.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_05_18
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!