Atomic Systems

For anyone who may be interested here is a map illustrating the Global Risk; where 1 is very low and 5 is . . . .



The majority of locations are hardly surprising, but it's a pity that we are at level 2 rather than level 1.

Alec

Whats the threat?

Wondering the same thing!

Anything and everything by the looks of it.

How things change. When I were a lad it looked more like this

The threat is posed by the breakup of the Euro which will happen sooner or later.We are now in a great depression,similar to the 1930's.The Euro crisis is just another piece in the jigsaw which has created the current situation.The only thing that got the World economy in the 1930's out of that great depression was WW2.....

Hi

Yes the draw down of the reg armed forces .... the increase of the T. A .... it's all happened before.

Although I thought the map was about geological faults .... and we do get earth quakes in the UK .... Sheffield mainly.

Cheers
Jon

The size of the army has nothing to do with it.Greece is in the grip of a severe contraction of its economy.Public employees are being "asked" to take another 10% reduction in their salary.Spain is teetering on the brink of going the same way with 25% unemployment with "youth" unemployment at near 50%.Their banks are in grave danger owing to the bursting of their housing bubble.The EU will not be able to carry on "bailing out" countries simply because there is not enough money in the pot.The only solution is the ending of the EURO experiment with severe consequences for everyone including this country.(Not ending it will result in even worse consequences including a war in Europe).We are too enmeshed with Europe and should have gone all out to increase exports to non EU countries several years ago,but those who can direct this have sat on their hands.
I will not say any more otherwise it might be judged "political".The above are facts or my reasoned conclusion to the present situation based on history;which has a habit of repeating itself.Others may wish to disagree with my conclusions and they are welcome to do so but current policies will not solve the problem in a way that will give a pleasant outcome.

GerardFiennes wrote:The size of the army has nothing to do with it.

If our armed forces are smaller we have fewer people to defend us and are thus at more risk

rufuskins wrote:For anyone who may be interested here is a map illustrating the Global Risk; where 1 is very low and 5 is . . . .

I hear what you're saying but that map surely does not represent anything to do with the Euro at all. Why is there a large swathe of Africa more 'at risk' than Europe itself?

This is the link I am speaking about:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/a ... pse.html.I am sure we will get a load of "Oh not not the Daily Mail"!The research is from this company:http://maplecroft.com/.Despite several countries having large armed forces,I believe wars in the future will be fought economically and by cyber means.No one of the large powers will risk initiating a war which could escalate to nuclear level although smaller staes (you know who I am talking about)may well do so.Perhaps the OP could inform us where his map came from.

Oh dear, it would appear that I have assumed that because I know what it's about then everyone else would.

It seems obvious to me because it forms part of the risk assessment for travelling on company business. The company I work for is a significant global company and hence not only has people working in "interesting" areas but there is also a need for travel by work colleagues. Depending on the region this map would form part of the decision process. If travelling to an area classified as Risk Area 5, then every effort would be made to use alternative means of communication; i.e. telephone or video conference rather than face-to-face.

The risks relate not only to potential terrorism, but also to abduction, etc.

Alec

rufuskins wrote:Oh dear, it would appear that I have assumed that because I know what it's about then everyone else would.

It seems obvious to me because it forms part of the risk assessment for travelling on company business. The company I work for is a significant global company and hence not only has people working in "interesting" areas but there is also a need for travel by work colleagues. Depending on the region this map would form part of the decision process. If travelling to an area classified as Risk Area 5, then every effort would be made to use alternative means of communication; i.e. telephone or video conference rather than face-to-face.

The risks relate not only to potential terrorism, but also to abduction, etc.

Alec

Then why isn't Tipton red ?

I think there should be a big red dot where I live. There is no bigger risk for a creditor than a refusal to exchange money for work. Once people have been out of work for too long, there are no assets left to sell. Money requires anti-money. Is this what this graphic represents?

What kind of risk though? Security, Money or corrupt government? As surely the US, China, Afghanistan and Pakistan should all be red afterall they are all at each others throats after recent events in Afghanistan and Pakistan involving US drone strikes... And surely if it was money then the republic of Ireland, and the rest of Europe would be at least yellow because of the finanical meltdown of the Eurozone... Or is it just someone trying to stir up more trouble for the world? As I notice Russia and the CIS nations as well as China are in class 2...