I think Russia annexing the Baltic states is extremely unlikely, but it would be a horrible thing if it happened. I dont think that the EU would stand by and do nothing, despite their usual bureaucratic gridlock. That is one thing that would get them off their collective asses! There probably isnt a country in the world that wants to see an aggressive expansionist Russia again.

Sentient species taste better...

Zellio, are you a member of the NRA?

Guns are practically illegal here in Australia. As with everything else in life, as soon as someone gets killed, the government brings in new restrictions that mostly just punish responsible citizens.

The way things are going here in Australia, it won’t be too long before the government bans going outside your house at all!! Because going outside is more dangerous than staying indoors.

To live a good life, you have to take some risk, but people here in Australia seem to be too stupid to realize this and keep calling for even more laws every time something bad happens. I am totally fed up with it, makes me want to pack my bags and move to another country!

Do you guys still have problems with the ozone layer? I know they used to tell us that the ozone was thinnest over Australia. Speaking of that, with all the roar and fire over global warming, does no one care about the ozone layer anymore? Is this basically a non-issue now? Does it turn out that the ozone layer isn't going to disintigrate like we thought it would?

i think the reason that those holes are there is to let excuse heat out

what i mean is the equater gets lots of heat which is serculated north and south to the poles where said heat then returns to space.

it would be easier if the were holes in the ozone allowing this extra heat out or we end up like venus.

Why does everyone believe that WWIII will be nuclear? Every country that has them knows of the danger, every country knows that in order to nuke an enemy into submission it could very well create a global environmental crisis, possibly killing themselves, no real leader would kill his own people because he/she is out of power. Any country invading a nuclear country knows to hold down the nuclear stockpile first to prevent some uncaring leader from using them as his/her deathblow.

Leaders go to war to protect their people, using nukes in a war would very well defeat that purpose.

because if the iranians and/or the arabs get them. they won't care. if you die in a holy war you get 75 virgins or something like that.

well your the one who said

I did not say it, so how can i be the one who is stupid just for proposing to test what you said????

Radiation is the only form of heat transfer that can occur in the absence of any form of medium; thus it is the only means of heat transfer through a vacuum. Thermal radiation is a direct result of the movements of atoms and molecules in a material. Since these atoms and molecules are composed of charged particles (protons and electrons), their movements result in the emission of electromagnetic radiation, which carries energy away from the surface. At the same time, the surface is constantly bombarded by radiation from the surroundings, resulting in the transfer of energy to the surface. Since the amount of emitted radiation increases with increasing temperature, a net transfer of energy from higher temperatures to lower temperatures results.



WWW Link

No you didn't. Radiation is a general term. It encompass a lot of stuff like Thermal Radiation (Heat), X-Rays, Gamma Rays (Nuclear), Beta Rays and a lot of others. Radio and Radar use modulation of EM Radiations to do their jobs.

See, there's Radiations and Radiations. Not all kinds are bad or even deadly.

As for the topic of WW3, there's a distinct possibility of it occurring. As for the nuclear weapons, I believe they won't be used. Not at first a least. See, using N-Bombs means you destroy all the infrastructures and all the population which means that by the time you win (if you do), you have a huge chunk of the economy missing.

Imagine if you will that China attacks the US. Nuke Washington, LA and NY plus a couple others. US does the same to Hong-Kong, Beiging (sp?) and Shanghai. Even if you do win to war or even just survive, you'll have lost. Even If you didn't annex the other country, even if not one nuke touched you. Imagine the world crisis that would happen if NY was destroyed. The 9/11 recession will be a fluke in comparison because when your sitting atop the ivory tower of power, people ARE expendable, but economy isn't. Even if only those three US cities are destroyed and the government survive (evacuate of something) the economy would be so much shattered that it would bring down the US to the same state of a west european nation.

Back to nukes, by the time the affected country is losing so badly it consider that it has no options but to launch a nuclear strike, it's most likely that most, if not all of it nuclear capabilities would already be captured/disabled as they would be, beyond a doubt, the very top priorities.

As for who, China is a sure countender, but I don't think they will attack the US. first. I think they will start a bit like Japan in WWII and start invading small(er) countries and then the US activate it war machine and strike backs, Russia joins the fray on the side of China (unless they are being attacked of course) and if they do, the EU (or at least the NATOs members) will attack Russia and ta-dah! WWIII.

I for one, don't believe that a rogue state could trigger a WW. They would perhaps nuke a few thing or invade a few bases, but all in all, they are but the equivalent of a hostage taker. While they can seem in control, ultimatly, if they are too much hassle or endanger too much people, they are killed. Hostage or no.

Radiation might be a general term however Danilost said heat was radiation. That is not a correct statement unless you put the word 'thermal' in.