Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to The pointlessness of the argument on terrorism

re: The pointlessness of the argument on terrorism
ER — (archived)

I agree, and I don't mean to minimize the threat, but it's not all that bad for the long run. As terrible as the near future may prove to be, a few hundred years from now these events will be like the siege of Vienna or the battle of Lepanto. A big deal for the participants but eventually dimmed by the passage of time for the rest of humanity.

The threat posed by Arab Nationalism/Islamic fundamentalism is real and will probably get much worse, but it is limited because the Islamic world can never match the west militarily and industrially as long as their societies are hobbled by religious fanaticism and political despotism. Any economic or political advantages they might derive from their victories will only breed popular resistance to the fanaticism they require to maintain the offensive. People want consumer goods now more than they want virgins in the afterlife. It's that simple. And if they choose to play the nuclear card they know we control the deck. The only advantage they have is oil, and it equally handicaps them as much as us because they need to sell it as much as we need to burn it.

The big long-term threat I see is China. Whenever I think of them I can't help but remembering the opening paragraph of HG Wells' War of the Worlds.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (41 posts)