Is Armageddon coming round to visit?

[vortexring 0]

And no, I'm not referring to my mother-in-law. I've always had this odd concern that the end of the world will come about during my adult life. God knows why.
In work we were talking about the armageddon clock approaching midnight, and it struck me initially as being rather odd, the amount of people who expected armageddon to occur in their lifetimes. Then even quite concerning.

Nobody could agree on what shape or form it might happen; ideas suggested were global warming, nuclear strikes, biological weapons and even God eventually deciding to just call it a day, and put us out our misery.

A bit of a wacky post yes. Now post your answer, or you'll burn in hell!

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[Butters 0]

No! It appears as though people have had this idea forever and will most likely have this idea forever.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[vortexring 0]

Indeed they have. But in the past they didn't quite have the capabilities to completely fuck the entire planet up, such as nuclear or biological weapons.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[SpeedRacer 1]

but the planet had the capability to fuck you up. Read up on the Black Death.

seriously, people were SURE the end of the world was at hand, and they were more close to being right then than they are now.

also, there were times in the past where we all had nukes & people thought the world would end & it didn't. look up the websites that list all the times armageddon was supposed to happen.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[narcimund 0]

The unique circumstance now is that the people who have the power to bring around the end of the world WANT the world to end.

Discrimination based on religion is bad and all, but isn't it just practical to deny nuclear weapons to people who think armageddon is inevitable and desirable?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 3,132]

Eh, all we have is the ability to make our own lives miserable. Even a nuclear war would be a boon to the ecosphere overall, even if we wiped most humans out.

The area around Chernobyl is the most heavily contaminated area in the world. Radiation levels there are still extremely high. Yet it's one of the most healthy forests in Russia; there are big populations of moose, deer, boar, otters and rabbits. Why? Because the people are gone. People are much more destructive to the environment than nuclear radiation; a war that destroyed us (or greatly reduced our numbers) and left nuclear contamination all over the planet would be a net plus for the natural world.

[shropshire 0]

And lo, there came from the west a rather bright light and a very big bang. The Earth did shake a little bit and the people of the Earth did fall to their knees and cry out and weep. They gnashed their teeth for a moment too; before they fell out of their bloody gums.


Woooow is us, for we shall perish at the hands of the evil doers and naughty folk and the meat shall inhertit the Earth.


.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Amazon 7]

When you have a religious Whack Job in the White House.. and he is on speaking terms with GOD.. .. and he goes out of his way to make it happen by pissing off the people in the region where the Biblical passages SAY it will happen( Village of Megiddo) and He believes it will happen and is willing to BRING IT ON.... yeah.. I think its a possibility.

[Butters 0]

The president does not have enough power to "BRING IT ON" so I would not be so concerned. Does no one remember the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Tink1717 2]

The version of Armageddon described in middle eastern desert mythology will absolutely not happen. However, religious hysteria, coupled with 21st century weapons and technology will, almost certainly, produce horrific events.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[dan_iv 0]

Quote

The president does not have enough power to "BRING IT ON" so I would not be so concerned. Does no one remember the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

that is not necessarily true...

"The 5 NWS parties have made undertakings not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-NWS party except in response to a nuclear attack, or a conventional attack in alliance with a Nuclear Weapons State. However, these undertakings have not been incorporated formally into the treaty, and the exact details have varied over time. The United States, for instance, has indicated that it may use nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states"[citation needed]. The previous United Kingdom Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, has also explicitly invoked the possibility of the use of the country's nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states"[2]. In January 2006, President Jacques Chirac of France indicated that an incident of state-sponsored terrorism on France could trigger a small-scale nuclear retaliation aimed at destroying the "rogue state's" power centers.[3][4]"

[narcimund 0]

Quote

The president does not have enough power to "BRING IT ON" so I would not be so concerned. Does no one remember the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

The administration of the US has made it clear it thinks treaties are sooo 20th Century.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 3,132]

>The president does not have enough power to "BRING IT ON" . . .

I beg to differ. He asked the insurgents to do that, and they did!

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

The president does not have enough power to "BRING IT ON" so I would not be so concerned. Does no one remember the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

that is not necessarily true...

"The 5 NWS parties have made undertakings not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-NWS party except in response to a nuclear attack, or a conventional attack in alliance with a Nuclear Weapons State. However, these undertakings have not been incorporated formally into the treaty, and the exact details have varied over time. The United States, for instance, has indicated that it may use nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states"[citation needed]. The previous United Kingdom Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, has also explicitly invoked the possibility of the use of the country's nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states"[2]. In January 2006, President Jacques Chirac of France indicated that an incident of state-sponsored terrorism on France could trigger a small-scale nuclear retaliation aimed at destroying the "rogue state's" power centers.[3][4]"

Yes, it is possible. But the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty shows that mankind is willing to communicate and compromise in order to refrain from Nuclear Proliferation.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[dan_iv 0]

Quote

Yes, it is possible. But the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty shows that mankind is willing to communicate and compromise in order to refrain from Nuclear Proliferation.

you mean that mankind was willing. N. Korea pulled out of the treaty effective in 2003, Pakistan, India, and Israel have never signed the treaty.

Oh and I'm only bringing it up to increase the FUD in this thread about TEOTWAWKI and it's impending doom in our lifetime.

[SpeedRacer 1]

do I need to repost all the Teotally-Wacky websites that list the previous armageddon predictions??

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[vortexring 0]

I do see your point ref. Black Death but I still feel modern man has far more potential to destroy earth through technology. I've also felt a nuclear war between Nato and the Soviet Union to be a non-starter. Nuclear exchanges between India and Pakistan and Israel/Iran seem far more likely.

I'm not insisting armageddon will happen soon - I just have a spooky feeling towards it all. As you said yourself, we've came close enough in the past. This fact illustrates the likelihood - not diminishes it. I personally know people who would've been firing the first shots in a situation which could have very easily escalated into a nuclear exchange with Russia, in 1999. Thankfully it never came to that.

p.s. when it seemed increasingly likely that Bush would become US President - guess how often it appeared in the UK tabloids armageddon was nigh!?
A lot.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[Butters 0]

Please correct me if I am wrong but at this time there does not exist a rogue nation with a large enough nuclear arsenal to obliterate the entire world. Thus, if an armed conflict involving a rogue nation escalates to the use of nuclear force there will be massive damages but it remains unlikely that it will result in armageddon.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[vortexring 0]

Is that from 'Life of Brian?'

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[Amazon 7]

What do you think would be the outcome of Pakistan falling into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists... all it takes is a successful coup by the ISI and the factions in the military.. you now have a huclear armed state.. run by fundies... who want to martyr themselves so they can get their 7 2 virgins in the hearafter....no so far fetched anymore.

It will take just one nuclear explosion in the tiny country of Isreal and they WILL bring the nuclear hurt to the Islamic world.

[vortexring 0]

Ok - if for example a serious nuclear exchange was to take place between Iran and Israel, would it be likely to simply end at that? The word 'escalation' springs to mind.....

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[Butters 0]

Quote

What do you think would be the outcome of Pakistan falling into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists... all it takes is a successful coup by the ISI and the factions in the military.. you now have a huclear armed state.. run by fundies... who want to martyr themselves so they can get their 7 2 virgins in the hearafter....no so far fetched anymore

Like I mentioned, (unless I am wrong about rogue nations possessing a large enough nuclear arsenal to obliterate the entire world) I feel that there will be massive casualties but it will not result in armageddon.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[vortexring 0]

I also don't really imagine a nuclear exchange as being the way we'll be wiped out. I think global warming will see to that, or perhaps intelligent lifeforms arriving, and taking over our minds, so that we all cut ourselves in half with bandsaw's. Wibble.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[dan_iv 0]

Quote

Please correct me if I am wrong but at this time there does not exist a rogue nation with a large enough nuclear arsenal to obliterate the entire world. Thus, if an armed conflict involving a rogue nation escalates to the use of nuclear force there will be massive damages but it remains unlikely that it will result in armageddon.

it doesn't need to be a "rogue nation" as the treaty doesn't have any formal verbiage about using the existing weapons that are already in existance, (at least the way I understand the treaty)...

[Butters 0]

Quote

Ok - if for example a serious nuclear exchange was to take place between Iran and Israel, would it be likely to simply end at that? The word 'escalation' springs to mind.....

There is a possibility of escalation but I believe most nations would be willing to communicate and compromise to refrain from nuclear proliferation. In other words, there may not exist Iran or Israel anymore but the use of nuclear weapons outside those nations will most likely not occur from that particular conflict.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch