How about the president that was only in office for a month? 

@Schniepel

Europe's only half the problem.  The US does much the same thing.  We flood the market in wheat, corn, sugar, soy, and nonfood crops such as cotton, which used to be a big industry in Africa (spare the jokes, Decimus) until the US heavily subsidized it.

@Flint

You forgot about GM crops.  Those things could grow just about anywhere.  However, there becomes the added problem that GM crops are so powerful that they completely overrun competing plants.  The solution would probably be to modify crops to have limits on reproduction (rice companies started secretly selling sterile rice to poor farmers a while ago, which would not reproduce at all.  While this screwed up a lot of farmers, it would have a possible use something similar in the United States, depending on how cheap it could be produced).

@Everyone who thinks Flint is talking about socialism

Wrong.

The only thing he is saying is that, if circumstances become extreme, the United States could increase its total production and reduce its total consumption to increase productivity.  Right now, it's not occurring because the market isn't favorable toward it.  For example, it's just more profitable right now for businesses to keep their food out at a buffet than to sell that food normally, probably because we are more accustomed to luxurious eating, and some waste in our eyes isn't something to worry about.  However, if food became a major global issue, to greater proportions than we are even feeling today, food prices would inevitably rise.  As food prices rise, businesses slowly shift their practices to account for the change in potential profits.

It's pretty simple: a person at a buffet is willing to pay $8.99 for as much food as they can eat (or less... there's some really awesome buffets in my town that are ridiculously cheap.  I've seen some as low as $3.00).  A starving person is willing to kill for a sandwich.  As the number of the latter increases, it becomes relatively less profitable to give food to the first guy, relative to the second.  Food efficiency increases, and we're accomodated.

Did you just commit an epic failure, considering the tab in the forum thing counts "replies," not "posts"?

Gladiator, Obama isn't home free from now until he gets in office regarding blame for whatever happens.  Remember, he was a senator, and is still qualified to be a senator for now, but he chose to resign.  That does indict him, because he had the power to influence the bailout as a senator, yet chose not to.

*cough* claim with no justification *cough*

> Schniepel wrote:

> Who is sying US will Bomb Iran? Its more likely Israel who will.. if we can believe their minister of defense they are allready prepared for it.

Also no one knows how far Iranian tech regarding the nuke itself really is. some say they are almost done.. others say at least 10 more years.

if iran plans to nuke Isrel.. the shield in poland and alaska and california is useless anyways because its too far away.
I dont know who iran would nuke if not Israel or USA.

And btw.. all this nuclear tech in noko and iran comes from.. tadaaa.. pakiastan.. US big ally in the war against terror.

First, on the Israeli strike issue... Israel needs the approval of the US to do things.  No, not officially.  But Israel going it alone to attack Iran would devastate their relations with the US under an Obama administration since it would undermine Obama's peaceful efforts toward Iran.

In addition, you assume that Israel's attack will actually succeed.  Hidden nuke programs can exist, and even if none exist, we would need to assume that the strike will go perfectly, and there aren't any facilities defended to a higher degree than what Israel knows about.  If there's even a single program around, Iran could rally the people against Israel and really get a crash nuclear program going.

As for the missile locations... let's go one by one:

Alaska and California... you're right, they're not around to stop Iran from a direct missile strike.  However, there's a second scenario that has always been a possibility.  The story goes like this: A small Iranian boat disguised as a civilian fishing boat goes to one of the coastlines of the US.  Once there, the ship launches a single missile (which Iran, by the way, has already designed and tested to be a success) straight into the sky.  Once it gets high enough into space, it blows up a nuke, releasing an EMP across the US (it needs to get to space because the upper atmosphere serves as a conductor for the EMP blast).  Game over for the US.

As for Poland... considering that France has probably been the most hardline opponent of Iran (they have an established policy that they will nuke Iran if there's a big terrorist attack in France), France could be a threat (spare the France jokes right now).  The UK may also be a potential target, but the UK just might be beyond the reach of current Iranian missiles.  A threat against Europe could be just enough to prevent them from further aggression against Iran, isolating the United States and Israel as lone crusaders against Islam.

And as for Pakistan, differentiate here: The nuclear knowledge was sold by a Pakistani scientist, not by the Pakistani government.  You're just generalizing at this point.

> Schniepel wrote:

> so.. if US abandones their missile shield.. and in return russia does not develop new icbm.. we will have same effect at way less cost..
lets do it:d

Except the US missile shield is to protect against Iran, North Korea... you know, people who use those old rusty missiles.

> sKoE )= wrote:

> I call the bluff. When we all die, i'll admit i was wrong. Until then, i'm right though.

Then it's official: You, skoe, are a liar if you ever make any prediction in the future.  After all, whatever you say hasn't been proven true until it happens.

Hell, your analysis of nuclear war is a prediction.  You lose.

As for the climate change issue.. I'm not saying that every animal will die as a result of the same thing.  Yes, most animals would live through the climate change.  But plants die.  Animal migrations are messed up.  That destroys key elements of the biosphere, which causes the other animals to die.

Plus you conveniently ignored everything else I said.

> sKoE )= wrote:

> Humans can adapt.

To what?

Radiation?  Alright, let's assume that radiation isn't at killer levels everywhere around the world.

The sudden climate change due to dust kicking into the air, maybe?  Now, humans can adapt to that.  However, the problem is that species we're dependent upon to survive can't adapt to that.  Take, for example... agriculture?  You try growing crops after the temperature permanently dropped 10 degrees.  You can change what crops you grow to adapt to the new temperature.  However, short term, you end up with a food crisis because current crops just die.  In addition, the transportation network is gone, which means large farm centers can't ship their crops to other regions of the planet.

Not to mention the following soil erosion, the destruction of key ecosystems (a temperature change would surely screw with rain forests, which is bad in itself).

Add to this other exacerbating circumstances (weakened immune systems combined with mutating diseases, a lack of medical infrastructure, loose nukes following any government collapse, and utter isolation between survivors due both to the destruction of transportation networks and the fact that both Russia and the US would probably start any nuclear assault by using a High Electromagnetic Pulse, short circuiting most electronics, the fact that nuclear war would kill certain so-called "keystone species," such as honeybees, which provide key services to the global ecosystem, and don't have other animals in the ecosystem that could duplicate their role following their extinction) and you've got multiple ways we can all die following a nuclear war.

> [RPA] Arocalex wrote:

> > Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

>The US can defend against about 20 missiles.  Russia has a few thousand, many of which are equipped with countermeasures, such as missiles that break apart into 50 or so pieces.  It's not like they need to spam that much. 

You can never be sure .

You can be too sure when you've bankrupted your economy due to exaggerating a miniscule threat.

Don't worry about that.  We're a bunch of guys who spend all our time on a politics forum.