Who is greater threat to the world peace: Iran, Iraq, United States or North Korea?

Sanjuro

gizmo wrote: »

So you'd be happy to see Israel wiped out?

That's an unfair conclusion to make from Liah's previous comment. The fact that the US interferes in the Middle Eastern politics is what contributes in a big way to the problems that exist there. To want the US to butt out does not mean a wish for the destruction of Israel. You cant just draw a line between the two. And besides, Israel's army is well able to take care of itself. That the US backs them no matter what just gives them carte blanche to do what they want without reproach. Which in turn contributes to anti-US sentiments in the Middle East.

HavingCrack

gizmo wrote: »

While the nuclear option is, of course, there for Israel, not even the US would condone them using it as it would devastate not only the region but also the West due to the effect it would have on oil prices worldwide.

As for the size of the military, I'm not sure where you heard the 4th largest quote but according to this they have the 17th largest.

Apparently (I can't remember what my source was, I'll have a look and get back to you), the Israeli's have a policy that if an invading army advances more than 10 kilometres into Israel they'll launch a nuclear respone. If the territorial future of the Israeli state was under threat I think they would launch a nuclear strike regardless of international opinion.

I can't remember where I heard the Israeli's had the 4th largest army, perhaps I'm wrong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCpjgl2baLs

Clawdeeus

An awful lot of this is a question of capability. Do I think the US is more dangerous? Yes. Do I think it is more rational than N.Korea/ Iran? Yes. Equally, both those countries, no matter how caraaaazy they get are regional powers, and will remain as such for the forseeable future, the US as the only world superpower (ish) has the potential to be involved in more conflicts all around the globe, purely by virtue of its power.

Clawdeeus

HavingCrack wrote: »

The Israeli's have an estimated 100 nuclear warheads, the Iranians, despite a widespread mistruth being fed to the West by the likes of Fox News do not have any.

The Israeli army is the 4th largest in the world I think. I can safely say there is not a hope that Iran will ever attack Israel directly, it would only lead to an Israeli nuclear response which would kill millions of Iranians. The Iranian government may talk a lot but they're not suicidal.

Just to clarify, no one says they have one, they say they want to build one (or are building one). And I agree, there is no way Israel will be defeated by any power in the middle east (even a united middle east) whislt the US is an ally. However, the fear of Irans nuclear program comes as much from ARab states as Israel; albiet they are more quiet about it.

MickShamrock

North Korea.

gizmo

Sanjuro wrote: »

That's an unfair conclusion to make from Liah's previous comment. The fact that the US interferes in the Middle Eastern politics is what contributes in a big way to the problems that exist there. To want the US to butt out does not mean a wish for the destruction of Israel. You cant just draw a line between the two. And besides, Israel's army is well able to take care of itself. That the US backs them no matter what just gives them carte blanche to do what they want without reproach. Which in turn contributes to anti-US sentiments in the Middle East.

It's not so much that I'm implying supporting the idea that the US should butt out means that one supports the destruction of Israel but it could be a very real consequence and it's one that should be considered when making such a point. This interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski has been posted before but I think he deals with the issue extremely well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xat-C4SpBl4

HavingCrack wrote: »

Apparently (I can't remember what my source was, I'll have a look and get back to you), the Israeli's have a policy that if an invading army advances more than 10 kilometres into Israel they'll launch a nuclear respone. If the territorial future of the Israeli state was under threat I think they would launch a nuclear strike regardless of international opinion.

That'd be Samson Option and to be honest I find it the prospect pretty terrifying for not only the lives that would be lost but to the knock-on effect it would cause elsewhere in the world.

HavingCrack

gizmo wrote: »

That'd be Samson Option and to be honest I find it the prospect pretty terrifying for not only the lives that would be lost but to the knock-on effect it would cause elsewhere in the world.

Which is exactly why I cannot see Iran ever launching an attack on Israel, the stakes are far too high. They're not going to risk their own destruction in order to satisfy some need to drive the Israeli's into the sea.

McDougal

If you go by countries invaded and civillians killed then the US by a long way

Seaneh

gizmo wrote: »

And if Iran attacked Israel tomorrow, would you prefer the US to do nothing?

If they do get involved, how do you think Russia and China will react when they new trade partner is involved in a conflict with the US?

And if they don't get involved, how long do you think Israel will last?

The IDF and IAF would wipe the floor with Iran. They are constantly watching Iran's troop movements and airforce for possible action. They already have a strike plan. Within hours of Iran even looing like they were going to attack Israel, Tehran would be worse than london in the middle of the blitzkrieg.

The IDF and IAF are some of the best train military personal in the world.

gizmo

McDougal wrote: »

If you go by countries invaded and civillians killed then the US by a long way

Actually given that North Korea started the Korean War in the 50s which lead to over 2m civilians deaths, I don't think the US are ahead by that much.

HavingCrack wrote: »

Which is exactly why I cannot see Iran ever launching an attack on Israel, the stakes are far too high. They're not going to risk their own destruction in order to satisfy some need to drive the Israeli's into the sea.

That is simply a plan they have in place, if was to be enacted upon Israel would lose all foreign support and regardless of the outcome of the strikes, they would not survive for much longer in the region. As such, I don't think it's likely they would attempt it and the Iranians know it. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think either of them are going to strike any time soon, my point in all of this is that the US isn't the most obvious answer to the question put in the OP given the current climate.

McDougal

gizmo wrote: »

Actually given that North Korea started the Korean War in the 50s which lead to over 2m civilians deaths, I don't think the US are ahead by that much.

That would have been a short civil war for koreans to decide if the US hadn't poked their noses in

And the US killed over 3.6 million civillians in Vietnam and Cambodia alone.

nacho libre

McDougal wrote: »

That would have been a short civil war for koreans to decide if the US hadn't poked their noses in

And the US killed over 3.6 million civillians in Vietnam and Cambodia alone.

you're wasting your time. for the US foreign policy apologists there is always a mitigating circumstance. their position is morally brankrupt; it is akin to a man charged with rape, trying to minimize his actions by pointing out that someone else raped and murdered someone.

gizmo

McDougal wrote: »

That would have been a short civil war for koreans to decide if the US hadn't poked their noses in

And the US killed over 3.6 million civillians in Vietnam and Cambodia alone.

When you say the US poked their noses I assume you mean UN? Need I remind you that the Security Council unanimously agreed to intervene when the North invaded the South.

nacho libre wrote: »

you're wasting your time. for the US foreign policy apologists there is always a mitigating circumstance. their position is morally brankrupt; it is akin to a man charged with rape, trying to minimize his actions by pointing out that someone else raped and murdered someone.

Sorry if I prefer dealing in facts rather than anti-American diatribe.

coolhandspan

iceland, definitely iceland, oh sorry not an option, but they have caused a lot of hassle recently.... little devils

McDougal

gizmo wrote: »

When you say the US poked their noses I assume you mean UN? Need I remind you that the Security Council unanimously agreed to intervene when the North invaded the South.

United Nations my arse. The vote was deliberately taken while the Soviets were absent and the Chinese hhad no vote either. Over 90% of the "United Nations" army were american and was entirely funded by the US. After the US invaded North Korea then the Chinese and Soviet Union began supplying the north koreans

gizmo

McDougal wrote: »

United Nations my arse. The vote was deliberately taken while the Soviets were absent and the Chinese hhad no vote either. Over 90% of the "United Nations" army were american and was entirely funded by the US. After the US invaded North Korea then the Chinese and Soviet Union began supplying the north koreans

It wasn't deliberately taken at that point, the USSR purposely abstained so as to undermine the legitimacy of the resolution. The make-up of the force is also irrelevant, 7 member states voted in favor of the resolution, 3 abstained and none rejected it. In this context also, if you are to criticize the anti-communist motives of the US then you should equally should criticize the USSR and the Chinese for theirs bias.

As a matter of interest, have you considered what would have happened had the UN not gotten involved? Especially in light of the current situation on both North and South Korea?

McDougal

gizmo wrote: »

It wasn't deliberately taken at that point, the USSR purposely abstained so as to undermine the legitimacy of the resolution. The make-up of the force is also irrelevant, 7 member states voted in favor of the resolution, 3 abstained and none rejected it. In this context also, if you are to criticize the anti-communist motives of the US then you should equally should criticize the USSR and the Chinese for theirs bias.

As a matter of interest, have you considered what would have happened had the UN not gotten involved? Especially in light of the current situation on both North and South Korea?

The USSR was temprarily boycotting the UN over the UN's decision to recognise Taiwan as the legimate Chinese state. It was forced through hastily in their absence. And is one of the nations that voted for it the US puppet government of Baptista's Cuba? What a joke! And of course the composition is relevent. It was an american war not a UN war.

gizmo

McDougal wrote: »

The USSR was temprarily boycotting the UN over the UN's decision to recognise Taiwan as the legimate Chinese state. It was forced through hastily in their absence. And is one of the nations that voted for it the US puppet government of Baptista's Cuba? What a joke! And of course the composition is relevent. It was an american war not a UN war.

If it had been the People's Republic of China and not the ROK sitting on the Security Council, how do you think the vote would have gone?

As for the latter point, shall simply have to agree to disagree.

The question remains though, would you have been happy to see the North Korea incursion succeed?

Celly Smunt

Conor108 wrote: »

I know its "hip and cool" to hate the US nowadays, but theres no comparison with the other 3.

how could you possibly say Iraq is a great threat to world peace?

Axe Rake

We have never achieved world peace so the poll and question is invalid.

There is currently approx 36 unresolved and enduring world conflicts still at play.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/index.html

ddef

F*cking hell, another American bashing thread I see.
would like to see yous live without them and watch the world economy crumble overnight.

pagancornflake

Axe Rake wrote: »

We have never achieved world peace so the poll and question is invalid.

There is currently approx 36 unresolved and enduring world conflicts still at play. (approximately, exactly?)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/index.html

No they aren't invalid. Nowhere does it say "current state of world peace" or the like. The threads title presumably refers to the pursuit of such.

Anyways, "World peace" is an impossible, Utopian idea. It is defined as a state of non-conflict between and within all nations (which of course includes inhabitants). The above reference to extant armed conflicts is immaterial, since in order for world peace to be achieved, all conflicts (including those between individuals and groups in society) would need to be resolved as well.

After looking at that list of yours I must add that the prevalence of bloody wars is far rarer in the civilized world (like Europe and America) than it is in places like Africa. This would lead me to conclude that the United States would be in a far better position to advise other countries in how to achieve peace than Iran, Iraq and North Korea.

Donkey Oaty

Interesting to see that nobody here gives a **** about wars around the world unless they affect the West.

Good luck in your discussion about "world peace" everyone!

johnmcdnl

well seeing as Iraq hardly has a military presence I can't see them doing too much damage in the next few years anyways...

bit of a silly option in the poll tbh - Ireland is a bigger threat to world peace than Iraq

Millicent

ddef wrote: »

F*cking hell, another American bashing thread I see.
would like to see yous live without them and watch the world economy crumble overnight.

World economy my rear end. The dollar is fluctuating at 70 to 75 (€) cent for quite some time now. If we're talking economies, China is the force to be reckoned with. If the American economy was gone, there would be a major depression and I'm not suggesting they aren't large contributors to the world economy but "crumble" is a wee bit dramatic.

Millicent

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Interesting to see that nobody here gives a **** about wars around the world unless they affect the West.

Good luck in your discussion about "world peace" everyone!

Eh?

FreudianSlippers

lol @ zero votes for Iraq. That country has been totally ballsed up by the US

nacho libre

gizmo wrote: »

When you say the US poked their noses I assume you mean UN? Need I remind you that the Security Council unanimously agreed to intervene when the North invaded the South.


Sorry if I prefer dealing in facts rather than anti-American diatribe.

I have no problem dealing in facts, it's you that would seems to have the problem in doing so by equating warranted criticism of numerous US government actions as anti-american diatribe. With this in mind legitimate criticism of american foriegn policy is not tantamount to being anti-american. Much as might suit you to frame things this way.

recylingbin

old_aussie wrote: »

Iran, with it's current mentally challenged leader maddinnerjacket

He seems quite clever to me.

gizmo

nacho libre wrote: »

I have no problem dealing in facts, it's you that would seems to have the problem in doing so by equating warranted criticism of numerous US government actions as anti-american diatribe. With this in mind legitimate criticism of american foriegn policy is not tantamount to being anti-american. Much as might suit you to frame things this way.

You didn't give any warranted criticism though, you made a veiled insult based on the fact that I disagreed with what the poster said. The diatribe comment is based on your disgusting analogy as well as using the the frequently abused term "morally bankrupt" to describe their position. For the record, the US and its foreign policy are guilty of a hell of a lot of abuses but neither quoting incidents incorrectly nor resorting to such hyperbolic terms helps the debate in the slightest.

FreudianSlippers

recylingbin wrote: »

He seems quite clever to me.

Yeah, he's the only one calling out the rest of the sane world on that whole Holocaust hoax.

recylingbin

OisinT wrote: »

Yeah, he's the only one calling out the rest of the sane world on that whole Holocaust hoax.

Seems to have gone down very well with his own people.
It's Paisley type politics. Very clever in many ways.

McDougal

ddef wrote: »

F*cking hell, another American bashing thread I see.
would like to see yous live without them and watch the world economy crumble overnight.

err what?!

FreudianSlippers

McDougal wrote: »

err what?!

'merica.. Fúck yeah!

McDougal

OisinT wrote: »

Yeah, he's the only one calling out the rest of the sane world on that whole Holocaust hoax.

I never believe "quotes" attributed to these leaders of the "axis of evil" countries unless I hear them personally. I'm not saying that Adjmadinedad(sp?) never said that but the right wing media always make up false quotes. They make Chavez out to be insane. The media claim he stated the earthquake in Haiti was caused by special US weapons. He said nothing of the sort. No recordings are available of him saying it.

nacho libre

Clawdeeus wrote: »

An awful lot of this is a question of capability. Do I think the US is more dangerous? Yes. Do I think it is more rational than N.Korea/ Iran? .

With regard to the Iranian leadership for all their fiery rhetoric over the last 30 years they have shown a remarkable knack for self -preservation. It's also worth bearing in mind it's not in their nature to invade other countries.

nacho libre

gizmo wrote: »

You didn't give any warranted criticism though, you made a veiled insult based on the fact that I disagreed with what the poster said. The diatribe comment is based on your disgusting analogy as well as using the the frequently abused term "morally bankrupt" to describe their position. For the record, the US and its foreign policy are guilty of a hell of a lot of abuses but neither quoting incidents incorrectly nor resorting to such hyperbolic terms helps the debate in the slightest.

I've no problem with people disputing erroneous information, it's engaging in semantics to justify various US actions, that they would have no difficulty in condemning another nation for that I have a problem with.
This is why I didn't offer any specific criticism because it's generally a pointless exercise.
For some there is a extenuating reason for every US action, they are incapable of acknowledging them as the henoius crimes they are. So while you might find my analogy digusting and hyperbolic, i feel it's entirely appropriate, and not at all a gross exaggeration, if you are aware of US foreign policy history over the last 50 years. The reality is both the CIA and US military have been guilty of various despicable crimes.

With this in mind you don't absolve/excuse someone of their crime because someone else commits a greater crime. Yet this is what some people attempt to do when they try to minimize certain acts by pointing out that some other government is commiting graver crimes. You say you acknowledge US crimes and abuses, yet in this thread and others you come up with excuses to explain away relationships with dictators and the mass killing of people for strategic interests.
I'm not at all sorry if you don't like me viewing such a position as morally bankrupt. I would say the same to someone who was making excuses for Russian war crimes in various regions.

gizmo

nacho libre wrote: »

I've no problem with people disputing erroneous information, it's engaging in semantics to justify various US actions, that they would have no difficulty in condemning another nation for that I have a problem with.

The problem is, the Resolution 84 wasn't semantics, there were 6 other nations on the Council that voted in favor of intervention in Korea. Intervention which has ensured that it is 24m people whom are living in desperate conditions under a despotic leader in North Korea, rather than 72m which could have been if the intervention was allowed to continue unabated.

With regard the makeup of the/any intervention forces, do you think it would be accurate to say that any resolution passed by the UN which involved military intervention would nearly always result in the US making up the bulk of the force?

nacho libre wrote: »

With this in mind you don't absolve/excuse someone of their crime because someone else commits a greater crime. Yet this is what some people attempt to do when they try to minimize certain acts by pointing out that some other government is commiting graver crimes. You say you acknowledge US crimes and abuses, yet in this thread and others you come up with excuses to explain away relationships with dictators and the mass killing of people for strategic interests.

The problem is, what I usually support is the more noble aspects of such incursions and attempt to focus on them rather than the constant oil/power criticisms. I don't doubt they were very strong motives however I also do not think they were the primary ones. For instance, I did support regime change in Iraq however the manner in which it was done was completely unacceptable, indeed it should be to any rational person. Those that disagree with the former aspect, in my mind however, imply that they are happy to sit back and condemn the populations of these countries to life under a dictator whom they have no real chance of removing. That to me is unacceptable. Does it, however, excuse the manner in which the US engaged in the conflict? Of course not. Would I have preferred any action to come from a UN level? Indeed I would have. Do I think that would ever have happened with the Chinese and Russians holding veto rights on the Security Council? Not at all.

On a side note, my current opinion of this thread in the context of "world peace" is which nation could spark off a more international conflict. In my mind this is simply not the US, certainly not Iraq, but more likely as a consequence of Iran/Israel and, to a lesser extent, perhaps due to the unstable leader in North Korea.

nacho libre wrote: »

I'm not at all sorry if you don't like me viewing such a position as morally bankrupt. I would say the same to someone who was making excuses for Russian war crimes in various regions.

I completely agree. It is a pity, however, that we rarely see conversations about Russian aggression.

Keptic

USA

Agricola

I wonder how many of the posters who think the US is such a threat to world peace will be taking a holiday in Iran, or N Korea next year.

After eight years of Bush, its really trendy to bash America these days. I suppose if Obama does two terms, extricates the US from the middle east and doesnt get involved in anymore conflicts, America will we viewed as a bunch of tree huggy hippies. People have short memories.

Its a joke to suggest the US is more dangerous than Iran or Korea! The only thing keeping regimes like those inline ARE the Americans! When the nukes start flying, I know which side of the fence I want to be on.

recylingbin

Agricola wrote: »

I wonder how many of the posters who think the US is such a threat to world peace will be taking a holiday in Iran, or N Korea next year.

After eight years of Bush, its really trendy to bash America these days. I suppose if Obama does two terms, extricates the US from the middle east and doesnt get involved in anymore conflicts, America will we viewed as a bunch of tree huggy hippies. People have short memories.

Its a joke to suggest the US is more dangerous than Iran or Korea! The only thing keeping regimes like those inline ARE the Americans! When the nukes start flying, I know which side of the fence I want to be on.

It won't matter if there's nukes flying.

Keptic

Agricola wrote: »

I wonder how many of the posters who think the US is such a threat to world peace will be taking a holiday in Iran, or N Korea next year.

Have you ever wondered what happened between CIA, USA and Saddam Hussein, why Iraq had to be attacked, how many wars were directly or indirectly caused by any of the above countries or why suddenly Middle East became a great threat?

Put your brain to sleep and watch more TV, certainly.

FreudianSlippers

Agricola wrote: »

I wonder how many of the posters who think the US is such a threat to world peace will be taking a holiday in Iran, or N Korea next year.

After eight years of Bush, its really trendy to bash America these days. I suppose if Obama does two terms, extricates the US from the middle east and doesnt get involved in anymore conflicts, America will we viewed as a bunch of tree huggy hippies. People have short memories.

Its a joke to suggest the US is more dangerous than Iran or Korea! The only thing keeping regimes like those inline ARE the Americans! When the nukes start flying, I know which side of the fence I want to be on.

Yeah, China!

HavingCrack

Agricola wrote: »

I wonder how many of the posters who think the US is such a threat to world peace will be taking a holiday in Iran, or N Korea next year.

After eight years of Bush, its really trendy to bash America these days. I suppose if Obama does two terms, extricates the US from the middle east and doesnt get involved in anymore conflicts, America will we viewed as a bunch of tree huggy hippies. People have short memories.

Its a joke to suggest the US is more dangerous than Iran or Korea! The only thing keeping regimes like those inline ARE the Americans! When the nukes start flying, I know which side of the fence I want to be on.

This is a ridiculous argument. I don't think there's a single poster on boards who would wish to live in or holiday in Iran, Iraq or North Korea over the United States. However that doesn't make these countries more dangerous to world peace than the USA.

1-Iraq-It possesses absolutely no threat to any of its neighbouring countries from its armed forces. Iraq has been involved in 3 wars since 1950, of which one of them, the most recent was a defensive war against invading armies led by the US.

2-North Korea-The only country I presume the North Koreans would consider attacking is South Korea and they won't do that because it will cause the resumption of all out war on the Korean penninsula and I can't see them getting anywhere near as much Chinese backing if that happened again. North Korea hasn't been involved in a conflict since the end of the Korean war.

3-Iran-The Iranians won't attack anyone directly, they might talk a lot of fiery rhetoric but they're not stupid. Who are they going to attack? Israel? It would only lead to their utter defeat, the Israelis would have international opinion on their side and the United States acting as its protector. Iran has fought one war since 1950, a defensive war against an Iraqi invasion.

4-The United States has fought 10 wars since 1950, not including the Cold War, none of which were for its continental security. Add to this countless US covert funding of wars such as the Sadinista rebels in Nicaragua, launching a coup that led Pinochet to power in Chile, supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan, a rebel army in Angola, supplying the Shah in Iran and Saddam Hussein in Iraq with weaponary etc etc Now, I wonder which of those 4 countries has and remains the greatest threat to enduring world peace...

Sanjuro

Agricola wrote: »

I wonder how many of the posters who think the US is such a threat to world peace will be taking a holiday in Iran, or N Korea next year.

After eight years of Bush, its really trendy to bash America these days. I suppose if Obama does two terms, extricates the US from the middle east and doesnt get involved in anymore conflicts, America will we viewed as a bunch of tree huggy hippies. People have short memories.

Its a joke to suggest the US is more dangerous than Iran or Korea! The only thing keeping regimes like those inline ARE the Americans! When the nukes start flying, I know which side of the fence I want to be on.

This whole notion that anybody who utters a single criticism of the US automatically hates the US and is just being 'trendy' is rubbish. It's an attitude that George Bush himself put so simply- you're either with us or against us.

Not everything is black and white. It's never a case of things being that simple. It's perfectly reasonable to disagree with American foreign policy and not actually dislike the country. To see it otherwise is the simpleton's way of viewing things.

The point remains that US foreign policy is the cause of a great deal of conflict in the world. Instead of pointing the fingers elsewhere, blaming an ideology for conflict in the world and instead if they looked in the mirror, maybe the US could answer the question of why so many people want to see the US burn. Finding what the motivation behind their enemies tactics is as important as punishing them. And sadly, something the US overlooks.

nacho libre

gizmo wrote: »

The problem is, the Resolution 84 wasn't semantics, there were 6 other nations on the Council that voted in favor of intervention in Korea. Intervention which has ensured that it is 24m people whom are living in desperate conditions under a despotic leader in North Korea, rather than 72m which could have been if the intervention was allowed to continue unabated.

With regard the makeup of the/any intervention forces, do you think it would be accurate to say that any resolution passed by the UN which involved military intervention would nearly always result in the US making up the bulk of the force?


The problem is, what I usually support is the more noble aspects of such incursions and attempt to focus on them rather than the constant oil/power criticisms. I don't doubt they were very strong motives however I also do not think they were the primary ones. For instance, I did support regime change in Iraq however the manner in which it was done was completely unacceptable, indeed it should be to any rational person. Those that disagree with the former aspect, in my mind however, imply that they are happy to sit back and condemn the populations of these countries to life under a dictator whom they have no real chance of removing. That to me is unacceptable. Does it, however, excuse the manner in which the US engaged in the conflict? Of course not. Would I have preferred any action to come from a UN level? Indeed I would have. Do I think that would ever have happened with the Chinese and Russians holding veto rights on the Security Council? Not at all.

On a side note, my current opinion of this thread in the context of "world peace" is which nation could spark off a more international conflict. In my mind this is simply not the US, certainly not Iraq, but more likely as a consequence of Iran/Israel and, to a lesser extent, perhaps due to the unstable leader in North Korea.


I completely agree. It is a pity, however, that we rarely see conversations about Russian aggression.

Well, that is a valid gripe. The US isn't alone in committing unsavoury crimes. I don't recall every seeing a thread here about Russia's two wars in Chechyna for instance. Regarding the Korean situation, it's fair to say that if America votes a certain way in the UN more countries will follow their lead than not. That's what happens when you are a superpower and other nations know they'll be rewarded for seeing things your way. Why else did we support the use of Shannon for the US military during the Iraq war?

As for the rest of your post, i think our main difference is you are of the view that the end justifies the mean.

I don't think human nature has fundamentally changed in the last 100 years, by this i mean, most wars are likely prosecuted for the same reasons they've always been- acquisition of resources and strategic advantage. So if Russia or America or China go to war i've very much doubt humanitarian considerations are at the forefront of their thinking. They will likely claim that they are to garner domestic support. Taking this last statement into account, if I talked to some Putin supporters they might well view the flattening of Grozny differently to how you are I might view it.
I'm afraid, unlike his supporters and supporters of the Iraq war, i can't focus on the more noble aspects of expasionists wars, because to me there are none, any possible positive side effect far outweights the misery and devastation wrought by such wars.

as regards the topic hand, there is no threat to world peace because it never existed. if the op means will we see world war three anytime soon i doubt it.

north korea will continue to make noises, but they know that China will not back them if they try to go to war.

iran: do not have a history of invading other countries and know if they suddenly decide to change that they will be on a hiding to nothing. so if they are attacked by Israel or America, i think their actions will not match the rhetoric of their president.

SantryRed

Surely it's the US as the other three combined all hate them so much? So technically the biggest threat is the US even if it's gonna be one of the others who strikes first against them.

Son Of A Vidic

What a comprehensive poll - Where is Israel? How can they not be included on the list? A nation the defies international law, ignores UN resolutions. Murders where and when it wants, whether it be in international waters or the world largest prison camp - The Gaza Strip. Come on OP, ffs!

Nailz

The greastest threat to the human race? Easy. Humans.