Wwiii

[CuongNhuka]

I was buffing tables at my Mcyd's (my job is degrading sometimes). We have a large tv that runs the news. There was a guy on it talking about the crisis in the Middle East and every so often the mess with North Korea. He said it was start of WWIII. This got my attention and I watched it for about 10 minutes, until I was needed up front. It got me thinking. What if this is the begining of anouther world war? Then the question becomes, would you support your country if it went to war over all this? And either way, how much? Would you enlist? Would you protest?
Things to keep in mind about were we (probably) would be fighting. First is North Korea. We have been to war there before, and more-or-less lost. And they might get China to help out. China being one of the only countries the U.S. seems to be afraid of. Korea claims to have nuclear weapons, and since they refuse to let U.N. investigators in, it makes one wonder what they have to hide. And they have developed a missle that in theory could hit any were in South Korea or Japan. Which is were we would doubltlessly be starting from. It could also hit most major targets in the western U.S., Canada, and Mexico.
Next is Lebanon. That country is very mountainus, makeing a land invasion difficult. As Isreal is finding out. And air strikes are only so effective. Something else Isreal is finding out. A good chunk of the population of Lebanon is either in or supports Hezbola. Which, remember, has bollistic missles and is not affraid to use them. And the Middle East is a very unstable area, so going to war with one country could set off the whole region. And since the bulk of U.S. oil comes from the Middle East, well, can you say "oil crisis"?
Last is Iran. Anouther mountianus country. Iran has missiles, and claims to have nuclear weapons as well. The thing is, there missiles were once U.S. grade. Because we sold them to them. Iran is also the one of the biggest in size, population, and political influence in the Middle East. Iran is also well know for it's support of terrorism. And one of there soldiers use succide tactics to mess with the enemy. What do they do? Run into the enemy line firing the weapon they may have, and die. The Iranian gov. has this unit for reason. Intimadation. After awhile there enemy is scared, confused, tired, and running low on ammo. Then there accutle force comes in. the kamakaze's number about one million, there regular force about 100 thousand. it's a crude tactic, but effective. And they have spent the last decade or so fighting Iraq, perfecting there army.
So, would you support your country? And if so, how much?

 

[still learning]

Hello, This has been going on for centuries....countries fighting each other....each generation teaches the next to hate!

Each race of people have those who teach their kids to hate the other races...the cycle continues until broken!

Good role models are hard to find. Good leadership is even harder to find!

What can we do? ...just one child at a time....If each of us can raise one good child and they intern do the same....ONE DAY THE WORLD WILL CHANGE TO THE BETTER! .....become a good role model for others to follow...........Aloha

 

[Kreth]

If each of us can raise one good child and they intern...

But if they intern, they have a higher chance of being molested by Bill Clinton or buried in Gary Condit's basement.



Oh, I forgot to say allegedly. :uhyeah:

 

[Xue Sheng]

Gary Condit.

lol. I got to give a man his props that takes a good jab a Condit. :asian:


allegedly that is......

 

[hongkongfooey]

I was buffing tables at my Mcyd's (my job is degrading sometimes). We have a large tv that runs the news. There was a guy on it talking about the crisis in the Middle East and every so often the mess with North Korea. He said it was start of WWIII. This got my attention and I watched it for about 10 minutes, until I was needed up front. It got me thinking. What if this is the begining of anouther world war? Then the question becomes, would you support your country if it went to war over all this? And either way, how much? Would you enlist? Would you protest?
Things to keep in mind about were we (probably) would be fighting. First is North Korea. We have been to war there before, and more-or-less lost. And they might get China to help out. China being one of the only countries the U.S. seems to be afraid of. Korea claims to have nuclear weapons, and since they refuse to let U.N. investigators in, it makes one wonder what they have to hide. And they have developed a missle that in theory could hit any were in South Korea or Japan. Which is were we would doubltlessly be starting from. It could also hit most major targets in the western U.S., Canada, and Mexico.
Next is Lebanon. That country is very mountainus, makeing a land invasion difficult. As Isreal is finding out. And air strikes are only so effective. Something else Isreal is finding out. A good chunk of the population of Lebanon is either in or supports Hezbola. Which, remember, has bollistic missles and is not affraid to use them. And the Middle East is a very unstable area, so going to war with one country could set off the whole region. And since the bulk of U.S. oil comes from the Middle East, well, can you say "oil crisis"?
Last is Iran. Anouther mountianus country. Iran has missiles, and claims to have nuclear weapons as well. The thing is, there missiles were once U.S. grade. Because we sold them to them. Iran is also the one of the biggest in size, population, and political influence in the Middle East. Iran is also well know for it's support of terrorism. And one of there soldiers use succide tactics to mess with the enemy. What do they do? Run into the enemy line firing the weapon they may have, and die. The Iranian gov. has this unit for reason. Intimadation. After awhile there enemy is scared, confused, tired, and running low on ammo. Then there accutle force comes in. the kamakaze's number about one million, there regular force about 100 thousand. it's a crude tactic, but effective. And they have spent the last decade or so fighting Iraq, perfecting there army.
So, would you support your country? And if so, how much?

All out war? You mean the full weight of our military unleashed to destroy the enemy? If that were to happen, you would see something totally different than what is going on in Iraq.

North Korea won't cross into South Korea because the ROK oldiers are bad mama jamas. They are better trained, better equiped, and most importantly, well fed. The reds up north are starving. The Korean war by the way, was a UN action and not lost by the UN forces. While the reds did take most of the south in 1950, they were pushed back into the north the following year. At the time of the cease fire agreement, the American led UN forces had accomplished their goal of removing the commies from the south.

I don't believe that the US is afraid of the Chinese. While the Chinese have a huge pool of resources, they would have to pull off a miracle to sustain any type of drive against a MODERN army. You can rest assured that NATO forces would with out a doubt controll the air and seas. China has a lot of outdated soviet era equipment, though they are trying to modernize their army.(another reason not to shop at Wal-Mart)

I have to ask, what makes you think that China would help to fight a war in the Middle East? You brought up nukes. China has some nukes, North Korea may have one or two. We on the other hand have tens of thousands of nuclear devices. You can bet you life that there are ICBM's pointed at all of our known enemies as I type this. When you add in sub launched missles,(which can be fitted with nuclear warheads) they (China and North Korea) are way out gunned. The same goes with Iran and the others in the Mid East, as Israel also has nukes.
We would take major damage for sure in a nuclear exchange, but they would cease to exist.

The missles that hizbolla(lower case intentional) is firing at Israel are unguided pieces of crap. You point them in a direction and pray to allah that they hit something. Terror weapons, nothing more.

Don't count out Israel is this, either. They are using a bit of restaint in Lebanon right now. They could have just leveled every thing in their path like they have done in the past. Which is what would be likely to happen if this were an all out war.

The oil issue would be a problem. We do have oil wells in the US. We have billions of barrels in reserve. You could expect very conservative rationing to occur.

Iran had fought a war with Iraq, and lost. Their army is less than perfect.

Would I protest? No, don't believe that I would. Would I enlist? Doubt that they would take me. I'm already in my mid thirties. There would probably be a draft in place anyway in the case of WW3.

 

[jazkiljok]

I was buffing tables at my Mcyd's (my job is degrading sometimes). We have a large tv that runs the news. There was a guy on it talking about the crisis in the Middle East and every so often the mess with North Korea. He said it was start of WWIII. This got my attention and I watched it for about 10 minutes, until I was needed up front. It got me thinking. What if this is the begining of anouther world war? Then the question becomes, would you support your country if it went to war over all this? And either way, how much? Would you enlist? Would you protest?
Things to keep in mind about were we (probably) would be fighting. First is North Korea. We have been to war there before, and more-or-less lost. And they might get China to help out. China being one of the only countries the U.S. seems to be afraid of. Korea claims to have nuclear weapons, and since they refuse to let U.N. investigators in, it makes one wonder what they have to hide. And they have developed a missle that in theory could hit any were in South Korea or Japan. Which is were we would doubltlessly be starting from. It could also hit most major targets in the western U.S., Canada, and Mexico.
Next is Lebanon. That country is very mountainus, makeing a land invasion difficult. As Isreal is finding out. And air strikes are only so effective. Something else Isreal is finding out. A good chunk of the population of Lebanon is either in or supports Hezbola. Which, remember, has bollistic missles and is not affraid to use them. And the Middle East is a very unstable area, so going to war with one country could set off the whole region. And since the bulk of U.S. oil comes from the Middle East, well, can you say "oil crisis"?
Last is Iran. Anouther mountianus country. Iran has missiles, and claims to have nuclear weapons as well. The thing is, there missiles were once U.S. grade. Because we sold them to them. Iran is also the one of the biggest in size, population, and political influence in the Middle East. Iran is also well know for it's support of terrorism. And one of there soldiers use succide tactics to mess with the enemy. What do they do? Run into the enemy line firing the weapon they may have, and die. The Iranian gov. has this unit for reason. Intimadation. After awhile there enemy is scared, confused, tired, and running low on ammo. Then there accutle force comes in. the kamakaze's number about one million, there regular force about 100 thousand. it's a crude tactic, but effective. And they have spent the last decade or so fighting Iraq, perfecting there army.
So, would you support your country? And if so, how much?

ww3 fears is just more news marketing. it got your attention, didn't it?- a real WW3 scenario would essentially be one giant flash and the discussion of the topic, irrelevant.

 

[CuongNhuka]

There seems to be a little confusion about something I said. I said that North Korea, Iran, and Lebannon would be the people we would likely to be fighting. I meant it like what happened in WWII with Germany and Japan. Despite every thing they really didn't like each other, and more or less ignored each other.
And the part about China being a country the U.S. is afraid of is something that I feel makes some sense. They have done things that others did and had the U.S. doing things they would never dare do to China. We seem reluctent to do much of any thing to them. Yes we could easily beat the the you know what out of them, but the sheer size of there army, and there unwavering patristism would make them a hard opponent to beat. Well, if they knew what they were doing.
And yes Iran lost there war with Iraq. But Iraq was more familiar with the type terrain, and the likely tactics of an unconventional army. Remember that unconvential armys tend to atleast be able to tic off convential ones, and put a thorn in there side. Look at what happened to the U.S. army in Korea, Veitnam, and both Persian Gulfs. We did better in Iraq, but we still are haveing some issues with them.
The major problem in fighting in the Middle East is Al Queda, Hezbola, and the terrian of of the region. Air strikes only go so far. Missles can be inaccurate, and even then, they also only go so far. The terrian and tactics of the local armys and terrorists would make ground invasions difficult.
As for me, I wouldn't protest. But if there was a serious threat to the U.S. I would enlist. And if the draft was put back in place, well I have family in Canada. By the way this is mostly a hypothetical, what would YOU do? As for enlisting, it's assuming that your of age to join the army.

john (Ohh Canada)

 

[Kensai]

All out war? You mean the full weight of our military unleashed to destroy the enemy? If that were to happen, you would see something totally different than what is going on in Iraq.

North Korea won't cross into South Korea because the ROK oldiers are bad mama jamas. They are better trained, better equiped, and most importantly, well fed. The reds up north are starving. The Korean war by the way, was a UN action and not lost by the UN forces. While the reds did take most of the south in 1950, they were pushed back into the north the following year. At the time of the cease fire agreement, the American led UN forces had accomplished their goal of removing the commies from the south.

I don't believe that the US is afraid of the Chinese. While the Chinese have a huge pool of resources, they would have to pull off a miracle to sustain any type of drive against a MODERN army. You can rest assured that NATO forces would with out a doubt controll the air and seas. China has a lot of outdated soviet era equipment, though they are trying to modernize their army.(another reason not to shop at Wal-Mart)

I have to ask, what makes you think that China would help to fight a war in the Middle East? You brought up nukes. China has some nukes, North Korea may have one or two. We on the other hand have tens of thousands of nuclear devices. You can bet you life that there are ICBM's pointed at all of our known enemies as I type this. When you add in sub launched missles,(which can be fitted with nuclear warheads) they (China and North Korea) are way out gunned. The same goes with Iran and the others in the Mid East, as Israel also has nukes.
We would take major damage for sure in a nuclear exchange, but they would cease to exist.

The missles that hizbolla(lower case intentional) is firing at Israel are unguided pieces of crap. You point them in a direction and pray to allah that they hit something. Terror weapons, nothing more.

Don't count out Israel is this, either. They are using a bit of restaint in Lebanon right now. They could have just leveled every thing in their path like they have done in the past. Which is what would be likely to happen if this were an all out war.

The oil issue would be a problem. We do have oil wells in the US. We have billions of barrels in reserve. You could expect very conservative rationing to occur.

Iran had fought a war with Iraq, and lost. Their army is less than perfect.

Would I protest? No, don't believe that I would. Would I enlist? Doubt that they would take me. I'm already in my mid thirties. There would probably be a draft in place anyway in the case of WW3.

Forgive me, but that is a very typically American attitude. Those badly trained and equipped "reds" or other forces in other countries, gave the US a serious snot kicking in Vietnam. Touchy subject, I know, but then this is. The Americans have ALWAYS underestimated their opponents, you have massive firepower, and it leads your doctrine in everything "you" do as a country. I prefer the approach of the British SBS their motto is "Not by strength, by guile". A little brainier than blow the living crap out of everything, then ask questions approach... When I was in Iraq, I saw a case of a load of US forces had "captured" an Iraqi man and his 2 sons, they were hunting for his lost daughter, they'd "arrested him on suspicion of being a terrorist" It took some smart Royal Marine Commandos to get to the root of the cause, to relieve them from "custody" and then help him locate his daughter. Which they duly did. That one action did more to futher the allies cause for what it's worth, than rounding everyone up and seeing "them" all as enemies. The difference in doctrine is massive, and telling.

I would rather look at the issues as to why these problems had/have arisen in the first place. Would I enlist for a cause I thought was down to politicians, extremist religious factions or economics? Bollocks would I. I don't believe in blind patriotism, lines on a map, or the colour of a flag. To me it's a bit of a nonsense. I take individuals, (as best I can) on a personal, individual basis. If they're "cool with me", then I will return the favour. If not, avoid them. Wouldn't it be great way to resolve wars, if no-one bothered turning up, and headed for the nearest pub? It would in my view. The world will likely go to hell in a hand cart over the next century, but it won't be down to my contributing to it, in my eagerness to enlist in situations I didn't believe, because I used MY judgement, not some ideology based on patriotism, politics etc etc. Sorry for offending some, but that's how I feel.

 

[crushing]

I would rather look at the issues as to why these problems had/have arisen in the first place.

Well, we can't very well go back in time and keep the typical European rivals from carving up the Middle East for themselves, but you are correct in that understanding the past may help us forge a better future.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3859631

 

[Xue Sheng]

Also not wanting to offend

Historically speaking the current problems in the Middle East come from Britain between WW1 and WW 2. Britain promised the Arabs one thing for their support against the Turks in WW 1 and promised the Jewish peoples something completely different for their support against the Turks in WW1 and pretty much didn't tell the Palestinians a thing about it nor the Arabs or Jews.

After WW 2 Britain could no longer afford to handle the Middle East situation and basically turned the whole thing over to the UN and America feeling it is the Police force for the world, which by the way many of the world think it is, stumbled into the whole mess.

As to China's military, don't let them fool you, they are not as antiquated as you would believe. But since they are better secrets than the the Western world, they are happy to let us believe it.

Also historically speaking the reason the US stopped in Korea was because of Chinas involvement at that time.

 

[Flying Crane]

quote=hongkongfooey All out war? You mean the full weight of our military unleashed to destroy the enemy? If that were to happen, you would see something totally different than what is going on in Iraq.


Well, if your definition of All Out War is to completely destroy and obliterate entire regions of the world and leave no chance for people to recover and rebuild a life due to nuclear fallout, sure our military might has not been fully unleashed. I hope it never will be as this would be the beginnings of a tragedy that would in the end include our own demise as well as that of our enemies.


You brought up nukes. China has some nukes, North Korea may have one or two. We on the other hand have tens of thousands of nuclear devices. You can bet you life that there are ICBM's pointed at all of our known enemies as I type this. When you add in sub launched missles,(which can be fitted with nuclear warheads) they (China and North Korea) are way out gunned. The same goes with Iran and the others in the Mid East, as Israel also has nukes.
We would take major damage for sure in a nuclear exchange, but they would cease to exist.


This is one of the mighty hypocrasies pushed by our administration. We have way too many of these devices, constantly pointed at everyone, yet we tell other nations that they cannot have them. Until we and our allies eliminate our own stockpiles of nukes, other nations will never agree to allow the US to push them around with regard to this issue. Why does anyone think that nations like North Korea and Iran would simply do as we tell them, when we ourselves have the biggest stockpile of anyone, and enough to obliterate the planet? Iraq had no nukes, nor other useable mass-destruction weapons. We invaded them. I think the lesson that nations like Iran and North Korea take from this example is that the fastest way to get invaded by the US is to NOT have nukes.

I don't like the idea of North Korea and Iran having nukes, but neither do I like the idea of the US having them as well. Maybe these nations have lunatics in charge, but we have a lunatic of our very own, who has actively discussed the idea of developing small scale nukes to be used in Iraq as "bunker-busters". Thankfully this idea has been shot down so far, but it could easily be revived. Until this line of thinking is permanently abandoned, we will never satisfactorily resolve the issue of nukes in the hands of nations like North Korea and Iran.

 

[Kensai]

Also not wanting to offend

Historically speaking the current problems in the Middle East come from Britain between WW1 and WW 2. Britain promised the Arabs one thing for their support against the Turks in WW 1 and promised the Jewish peoples something completely different for their support against the Turks in WW1 and pretty much didn't tell the Palestinians a thing about it nor the Arabs or Jews.

After WW 2 Britain could no longer afford to handle the Middle East situation and basically turned the whole thing over to the UN and America feeling it is the Police force for the world, which by the way many of the world think it is, stumbled into the whole mess.

As to China's military, don't let them fool you, they are not as antiquated as you would believe. But since they are better secrets than the the Western world, they are happy to let us believe it.

Also historically speaking the reason the US stopped in Korea was because of Chinas involvement at that time.

Could not agree more my friend. :asian: But the ability to criticise one's own country is healthy. Britain held the mandate for Palestine, I think in 1948/1949, and proceeded to help cause the current situation by cedeing much of their land to the current Israeli state. My point was merely meant to balance what I assumed would become a very blindly patriotic outpouring, as it were.

As for the Chinese, we (the RN) have shared info with various US sources I'll not mention, and to underestimate them, would be perilous. However, you also have to consider their direction and motives. We also cannot judge every other country and it's culture by our own standards. China could theoretically, according to one particular source, put 300 million men in the field. Technologies great, but think about that number for a second. The other thing to bare in mind is, why would they want to... China has historically been the Celestial Empire, the world revolved around them, they didn't really care about what went on in the rest of the world, as far as they were concerned they were satellite states. Good point about China's involvement in Korea too XS. Good debate/discussion. :asian:

 

[Kensai]

Well, we can't very well go back in time and keep the typical European rivals from carving up the Middle East for themselves, but you are correct in that understanding the past may help us forge a better future.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3859631

Very valid points. What's that quote, "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"? How apt...

 

[Xue Sheng]

Could not agree more my friend. :asian: But the ability to criticise one's own country is healthy. Britain held the mandate for Palestine, I think in 1948/1949, and proceeded to help cause the current situation by cedeing much of their land to the current Israeli state. My point was merely meant to balance what I assumed would become a very blindly patriotic outpouring, as it were.

As for the Chinese, we (the RN) have shared info with various US sources I'll not mention, and to underestimate them, would be perilous. However, you also have to consider their direction and motives. We also cannot judge every other country and it's culture by our own standards. China could theoretically, according to one particular source, put 300 million men in the field. Technologies great, but think about that number for a second. The other thing to bare in mind is, why would they want to... China has historically been the Celestial Empire, the world revolved around them, they didn't really care about what went on in the rest of the world, as far as they were concerned they were satellite states. Good point about China's involvement in Korea too XS. Good debate/discussion. :asian:

As to China you are correct sir. There is an old saying in China "nothing good ever comes from the west" China tends to worry about China, if you leave it alone it trends to stay to itself. It is also currently very keen on Western companies and the money it can gain from that.

I do not honestly believe China has any interest in a large scale war, I was just pointing out that they are not as antiquated as many from the west like to think, it learned its lesson during the opium wars on that one.

As to criticism, you would never catch me criticizing the bumbling buffoons that stumbled into the Middle East without understanding what was really going on after Britain had already given it over to the UN, nope not me

But I am WAY off post.

I just like to interject historical accuracy into these things from time to time that’s all.

 

[Kensai]

As to China you are correct sir. There is an old saying in China "nothing good ever comes from the west" China tends to worry about China, if you leave it alone it trends to stay to itself. It is also currently very keen on Western companies and the money it can gain from that.

I do not honestly believe China has any interest in a large scale war, I was just pointing out that they are not as antiquated as many from the west like to think, it learned its lesson during the opium wars on that one.

As to criticism, you would never catch me criticizing the bumbling buffoons that stumbled into the Middle East without understanding what was really going on after Britain had already given it over to the UN, nope not me

But I am WAY off post.

I just like to interject historical accuracy into these things from time to time that’s all.

Again, I agree totally, in particular with the part highlighted. Their historical nature has been literally to "put up walls", or to maintain a very defensive posture. A truly prodigiously enormous revamping, rebuilding of her economy, social isn't aided by picking fights and starting wars.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Some good thoughts. But this started as a hypothecital, so I'm going to change this a little with anouther hypothectical. Lets say, for the sake of saying, that Iran sends a nuke into Isreal. The power of one could wipe the country off the map. Now what?
and anouther just for the sake of saying, lets say that Iran sneds a decliration of war to the U.S. And that that decliration includes a threat that they have still more nukes.

Now some of you may remember that I'm writing a story, this is part of the prelude. Scary that it might come true, hu?

 

[Kensai]

Some good thoughts. But this started as a hypothecital, so I'm going to change this a little with anouther hypothectical. Lets say, for the sake of saying, that Iran sends a nuke into Isreal. The power of one could wipe the country off the map. Now what?
and anouther just for the sake of saying, lets say that Iran sneds a decliration of war to the U.S. And that that decliration includes a threat that they have still more nukes.

Now some of you may remember that I'm writing a story, this is part of the prelude. Scary that it might come true, hu?

Well, boringly we've (the World) has been here before with the Cuban Missile crisis. Diplomacy and common sense rather than sabre rattling rather than screaming "YEEHAUGHGHWW" and nuking everything in sight. Would retaliating with a nuclear response be the best course of action? Would it be the ONLY course of action? Or would it be the worst reaction possible? Who knows. There are several ideas for your book. There could be the hero/ine trying to race to avert nuclear exchange, in the ilk of Tom Clancy type novels, or perhaps an anti hero trying to start it? Loads of ideas. Good luck, writing rules.

 

[CuongNhuka]

well (this is off subject). the sorta lead up is that humans ended up so hateful of each other that there were a total of 6 world wars, the last four went nuclear. then all the big countrys gave in to political in fighting and colapsed. eventualy we all calm down and an uneasy peace ensuses. exept in a few countrys that are still dealing with rebels. then as a species we all mangae to become (for lack of a better term) gods. but there are about 12 billion at the time. and growing.
eventuly nature goes "all right, i cann't deal with this any more" and creates a new virus that wipes out the entire human population of the americas. people breath a breath of releif, and then it reapears in eupore. and before we figure out that it targets human dna (and to spilce human and animal dna to avoid infection) it wipes out all of europe, the middle east, north africa, and western asia. after that is a secret.

but the point was the prelude to my story seems to be coming true, at least in the world wars part.

 

[Kensai]

well (this is off subject). the sorta lead up is that humans ended up so hateful of each other that there were a total of 6 world wars, the last four went nuclear. then all the big countrys gave in to political in fighting and colapsed. eventualy we all calm down and an uneasy peace ensuses. exept in a few countrys that are still dealing with rebels. then as a species we all mangae to become (for lack of a better term) gods. but there are about 12 billion at the time. and growing.
eventuly nature goes "all right, i cann't deal with this any more" and creates a new virus that wipes out the entire human population of the americas. people breath a breath of releif, and then it reapears in eupore. and before we figure out that it targets human dna (and to spilce human and animal dna to avoid infection) it wipes out all of europe, the middle east, north africa, and western asia. after that is a secret.

but the point was the prelude to my story seems to be coming true, at least in the world wars part.

I'm not sure of that. It seems it, but then the course of human history runs red with blood. We may have the means to cause even greater levels of anhilation, but a reduced populace isn't necessarily a bad thing either. It's more the long term damage to the planet that we'd cause long term as a species that I'd feel bad about. Humans, in the grand scheme of things, are neither here nor there.

 

[CuongNhuka]

I'm not sure of that. It seems it, but then the course of human history runs red with blood. We may have the means to cause even greater levels of anhilation, but a reduced populace isn't necessarily a bad thing either. It's more the long term damage to the planet that we'd cause long term as a species that I'd feel bad about. Humans, in the grand scheme of things, are neither here nor there.

Agreed. Most of the storys I write are apacolipitic at best. Mostly because human nature is so self discructive. Anyways...now I have nothing much to say.