jaredsxtn Wrote: Noam Chomsky penned an article in today's issue of Salon magazine that cast a dire warning about the world's future if it continues down its current path of unrestrained use of fossil fuels. He discussed human kinds ability to destroy itself in so many ways now that it's just a matter of time before it becomes a reality if we don't shape things up. Not surprisingly, Mr. Chomsky does not have many kind words for the current state of affairs regarding the world's largest energy consumer, the United States.
Mr. Chomsky also discussed the dire state of affairs with regards to nuclear proliferation throughout the world and cautioned that the threat of a nuclear conflict is very real. The fact that one nuclear strike will most likely start a nuclear war is not one that should be taken lightly. Throughout his article he explained the current state of affairs with regards to the Iran and North Korean nuclear crises, but I must admit that I was frustrated that he did not discuss the Pakistani and Indian tensions, which I find far more disturbing and something that could start a nuclear crisis in the near future. It is not reported on much, but the tensions between these two countries are the highest they have been in decades. The fact that both of these countries are nuclear armed nations bent on destroying each other definitely keeps me awake at night sometimes.
Thoughts on Noam Chomsky's recent article and if humanity is destined for disaster, as he suggests?
jamesn Wrote: Dutch you are right, we will be using fossil fuels for a long time, far past the time I have remaining on this earth. Even if the US and other "industrialized countries" stopped buring oil, the developing world will continue. Look at China, India, and other countries who are increasing their use of oil, who is going to make them stop? No one, that's who.
Nukes are a danger and.."if ayone has the guts to throw nukes around"... it is Al Queda or another radical Islamic organization. If they ever get their hands on one they would not hesitate to try to smuggle it into Israel or the US, Great Britian, or wherever they have the best opportunity. They certainly would not worry about ..."revenge"... or someone..."throwing the same thing back"... They would not spend a minute thinking about that, they care only about doing as much destruction as possible.
jared you are correct that Al Quada does not have ..."lauch pads or any other delivery mechanism"... but that would not deter them from using ANY kind of nuke/dirty bomb if they could get their hands on it. They would be happy to try to smuggle it to their target on a ship or in a shipping container or by whatever means they could utilize. Let's say they could get it onto a ship and sail it into a port. If they were intercepted before they reached land they would happily detonate it as close as possible to the target. If they are in a western port or even close to a western port or a western coast the prevailing west to east winds would spread the fallout and finish their job. A nuke exploding in New York, Washington, Tel Aviv, or London would be the best scenerio for Al Quada or another radical Islamic terrorist group.
I do agree with you that India-Pakistan is the most likely scenerio of two official countries/governments who are most likely to start a nuke exchange.
On oil consumption we are the leader no doubt but China, India and others are gaining quickly and they will not be slowed anytime soon. That is my point: that others countries will continue to increase their oil consumption NO MATTER what the US does. We have to develop a more economical energy system, because it is economics which can eventually win this issue. We can not MAKE other countries to do as we wish but when solar (or wind or geo thermal...etc) generated electricity is cheaper than petro energy then we can begin to win this battle.