[QUOTE=jasong;473553]I assume you're trolling, what with North Korea upping its nuclear program and the fact that Russia's been making its own moves.[/QUOTE]I assumed the exact opposite.

By historical standards, hardly anyone is at war with anyone else and civil society almost everywhere is amazingly peaceful, again by historical standards.

There have been a few unfortunate incidents recently in places like northern Burma but nothing on the scale which happened throughout Europe, the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia in the 20th century, or North America in the 19th, to mention only domestic incidents.

If you want to know what life was like back in the good old days you could do worse than research the stories of Carthage, the Thirty Years War, and the Mongol empire.

[QUOTE=jasong;473553]I assume you're trolling, what with North Korea upping its nuclear program and the fact that Russia's been making its own moves.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, if you think I'm trolling, then you are quite ignorant of the history of the world.

Nuclear weapons always have the potential to be the worst thing in the history of humanity, but even North Korea is a far less serious threat than either the USSR or USA back during the Cold War.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;473414]The world is the most stable and peaceful it has been in its history, even despite what Trump has managed to "accomplish" so far.

The background natural disaster rate is no higher than it has even been in the last n-thousand years, for some n greater than (e.g.) 10.[/QUOTE]
In the sense of there being no wars killing off tens of millions of people, or pandemics killing of more than 10% of humanity, you've got a point. There are some wars worthy of note, and a man-made famine progressing in Yemen.

As to "stable," I'm not so sure about that.

As to "natural disasters," there's a book entitled [u][b]The Sixth Extinction:[/b] [i]An unnatural History[/i][/u] by Elizabeth Kolbert you might find a sobering read.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;473638] There are some wars worthy of note, and a man-made famine progressing in Yemen.[/QUOTE]Examples of the former? I can't think of any off-hand. Some low-level skirmishes in and around Syria, ditto in southern Arabia. Nothing, as far as I am aware, in the Americas (north or south), Europe, Australasia or the vast majority of Asia. Technically there is a war going on in the Korean Peninsula but more people are killed by lightning in Europe per annum than are in that war. Oh yes, the Indians and Pakistanis, and the Israelis and the Palestinians are hurling insults at each other.

As for famines, ome of us remember Biafra, the Great Leap Sideways, Ethiopia and Cambodia's Year Zero. What is happening in Yemen is piddling by comparison with any of these.

No-one now remembers the Irish potato famine or that thousands of people in the UK would die of starvation and exposure every winter without fail. Very few remember the collectivization of Soviet agriculture either. For each of these we need go back less than 300 years.

I'm not saying the world is perfect, far from it, but that's not the argument, which is whether it's better now than it has been in the past.

[QUOTE=jasong;473553]I assume you're trolling, what with North Korea upping its nuclear program and the fact that Russia's been making its own moves.[/QUOTE]
To follow on to the historical perspective, one need not go back further than the first three years of the 1950s. As happened in other parts of the world, the US took extreme exception to a homegrown hero taking power, who had fought the Japanese occupation. This umbrage was due to the northern fighters being associated with China, and that other [B]"C" [/B]word. South Korea was a US-propped puppet regime, which changed dictators frequently.
From Wikipedia:
[QUOTE]The U.S. dropped a total of 635,000 tons of bombs, including 32,557 tons of napalm, on Korea, more than during the whole Pacific campaign of World War II.[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#cite_note-Walkom2010-320"][317][/URL][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#cite_note-japanfocus.org-321"][318][/URL][/QUOTE]General Curtis Lemay bragged,
[QUOTE]We went over there and fought the war and eventually burned down every town in [URL="https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/North_Korea"]North Korea[/URL] anyway, someway or another, [U]and some in [URL="https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/South_Korea"]South Korea[/URL] too[/U].… Over a period of three years or so, [B]we killed off[/B] — what — t[B]wenty percent of the population of Korea[/B] as direct casualties of war, or from starvation and exposure? [/QUOTE][QUOTE]Almost every substantial building in North Korea was destroyed as a result.[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTECumings2005297%E2%80%9398-322"][319][/URL][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJager2013237%E2%80%9342-323"][320][/URL] The war's highest-ranking U.S. POW, U.S. Major General [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Dean"]William F. Dean[/URL],[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#cite_note-Witt2005-324"][321][/URL] reported that the majority of North Korean cities and villages he saw were either rubble or snow-covered wasteland.[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#cite_note-Cumings2004-325"][322][/URL][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#cite_note-326"][323][/URL] North Korean factories, schools, hospitals, and government offices were forced to move underground, and air defenses were "non-existent."[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#cite_note-japanfocus.org-321"][318][/URL] In November 1950, the North Korean leadership instructed their population to build dugouts and mud huts and to dig underground tunnels, in order to solve the acute housing problem.[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#cite_note-327"][324][/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_of_the_Air_Force_%28United_States%29"]U.S. Air Force General[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay"]Curtis LeMay[/URL] commented, "we went over there and fought the war and eventually burned down every town in North Korea anyway, some way or another, and some in South Korea, too."[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#cite_note-328"][325][/URL] [B][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyongyang"]Pyongyang[/URL], which saw 75 percent of its area destroyed, was so devastated that bombing was halted as [U]there were no longer any worthy targets.[/U][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#cite_note-329"][326][/URL][/B][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#cite_note-330"][B][327[/B]][/URL] On 28 November, Bomber Command reported on the campaign's progress: 95 percent of Manpojin was destroyed, along with 90 percent of Hoeryong, Namsi and Koindong, 85 percent of Chosan, 75 percent of both Sakchu and Huichon, and 20 percent of Uiju. According to USAF damage assessments, [B]"eighteen of twenty-two major cities in North Korea had been at least half obliterated.[/B]"[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#cite_note-331"][328][/URL] By the end of the campaign, US bombers had difficulty in finding targets and were reduced to bombing footbridges or jettisoning their bombs into the sea.[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#cite_note-332"][329][/URL][/QUOTE]They also destroyed the rice paddies and irrigation structures.

The point of this rant is that North Korea's interest are in deterrence. They could effectively obliterate Seoul by [U]conventional[/U] means. They don't.

It is obvious that if they even attempted a nuclear first strike against [U]any[/U] other state, they would be utterly destroyed by the only nation that ever used nuclear weapons in war.

They have before them the examples of Syria, Iraq, and Libya. Those governments attempted to comply with disarmament demands, only to be destroyed, or grievously injured. They see Iran in the cross-hairs.

North Korea's threat is, "We know you can destroy us. Take us out, we will hurt you on the way." That is the only value of [U]any[/U] weaponry they may have.

Don't say that I am defending the Kims. I am trying to show some of the historic antecedents to the current situation.

Russia is a whole other issue.

Realize that the current state of the world is more complicated than what is presented in popular media in the US. Research, and meditate on the word "blowback." This can be translated roughly as "karma."

I understand that your views of the world are different than mine. I hope that you can grant me the same grace.

[QUOTE=kladner;473671]To follow on to the historical perspective, one need not go back further than the first three years of the 1950s. As happened in other parts of the world, the US took extreme exception to a homegrown hero taking power, who had fought the Japanese occupation. This umbrage was due to the northern fighters being associated with China, and that other [B]"C" [/B]word. South Korea was a US-propped puppet regime, which changed dictators frequently.
From Wikipedia:
General Curtis Lemay bragged,
They also destroyed the rice paddies and irrigation structures.

The point of this rant is that North Korea's interest are in deterrence. They could effectively obliterate Seoul by [U]conventional[/U] means. They don't.

It is obvious that if they even attempted a nuclear first strike against [U]any[/U] other state, they would be utterly destroyed by the only nation that ever used nuclear weapons in war.

They have before them the examples of Syria, Iraq, and Libya. Those governments attempted to comply with disarmament demands, only to be destroyed, or grievously injured. They see Iran in the cross-hairs.

North Korea's threat is, "We know you can destroy us. Take us out, we will hurt you on the way." That is the only value of [U]any[/U] weaponry they may have.

Don't say that I am defending the Kims. I am trying to show some of the historic antecedents to the current situation.

Russia is a whole other issue.

Realize that the current state of the world is more complicated than what is presented in popular media in the US. Research, and meditate on the word "blowback." This can be translated roughly as "karma."

I understand that your views of the world are different than mine. I hope that you can grant me the same grace.[/QUOTE]
I will definitely agree that I am ignorant of most history, especially stuff that the US media tends to stay away from.

I googled the whole more disasters than normal thing, and I am "kind of" correct. I say "kind of" because global warming could explain the increase, and maybe statistics math as well. (I want to learn about statistics math and how to test studies, but have never gotten around to it)

While I believe the Jerusalem thing is a sign of things to come, it's totally possible, even probable, that I'm wrong about Trump, and I withdraw the admittedly shrill comment.

God bless. :)

Be assured that a variety of possible-to-probable disasters are of grave concern to me. At some point, it is hard to separate "Natural" from "Acts of G*d." Nor does it much matter.

Perhaps ascending on a column of plasma will turn out to be rapturous.

[QUOTE=kladner;473679]
Perhaps ascending on a column of plasma will turn out to be rapturous.[/QUOTE]

Sounds to me more like "immediately and thoroughly deadly" rather than "rapturous".

[QUOTE=Dubslow;473685]Sounds to me more like "immediately and thoroughly deadly" rather than "rapturous".[/QUOTE]
I agree. That was an attempt at grim humor.

[QUOTE=kladner;473700]I agree. That was an attempt at grim humor.[/QUOTE]

I figured as much :smile: It reminded me of the old video game series "Halo", in which the religious leaders of the highly-religious enemy collective talk of The Great Journey into the divine beyond; (spoilers!) it's later revealed that their "great journey" is in fact the wiping out of all sentient life in the galaxy. "Rapture"/"Great Journey" indeed.

I really don't know where is best to post [URL="http://www.revk.uk/2017/12/its-official-adsl-works-over-wet-string.html"]this[/URL].