Nuclear attack unavoidable, experts say

Despite more than a half-century free of nuclear war, a majority of experts assembled at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on Thursday concluded a nuclear or radiological attack is inevitable over the next 50 years, if not this decade.

"The consequence will be worldwide horror that will result in less reliance on nuclear weapons," suggested former National Security Council senior director Jane Wales, president of the World Affairs Council in San Francisco.

I recently read that mobile phone penetration just reched 50% in the US: it's quite a little, compared with the 80% in Western Europe.

Apples and oranges. The US is more sparsely populated in Europe. In many parts of the country, it is not economical to use mobile phone technology because the distances are too far. I think many Europeans fail to grasp that there are large regions of the US that have less than 1 person per square kilometer and that fewer Americans live in urban and suburban environments than Europeans. Mobile phones cost about the same as regular phones in the US so there isn't an economic incentive, but a mobile phone doesn't do you much good if you live in the boonies or regularly travel into the boonies, and many Americans do. Unless the US becomes urbanized to the extent that Europe is, you'll never see mobile phone penetration that is equivalent.

Incidentally, people who live in the boonies prefer to use VHF/UHF and CB radio for communication. Much better coverage and range than mobile phones and its free. People choose the solution that works for their environment.

Oh,I'm just a poor man,at my parents home I got just a 256kbps connection for 12.95 ? a month. Luckily at my home I got 10Mbps broadband via fiber optics, for 75 ?

Similar prices here, and for symmetric bandwidth. I actually have gigabit fiber to the Internet, but I'm special. WiFi is very common in the US as well, and most of the next generation wireless networking gear (to replace WiFi) is being produced by American companies, with bandwidth and scalability that far exceeds anything being deployed in Europe.

Again, one thing you fail to understand is that the US is a sparsely populated and only moderately urbanized country compared to Europe. Broadband is very dependent on distances; since the average network miles for a city with a given population in the US is much larger than the network miles for a city with the same population in Europe, it is vastly more expensive to wire everything up in the US. Europe does not engender any type of superiority for having tiny countries and cramped living conditions. This is the same reason a US PRI is slower than a European PRI; the distances involved means US networks have to add echo cancelers which eat bandwidth.

All the cities in the US are heavily criss-crossed with fiber, but that doesn't help you deliver bandwidth to individual buildings when a lateral costs $10k due to basic construction costs. Europeans live packed like sardines, so they can amortize lateral costs across many people, unlike the US where people are more spread out. It doesn't really matter though. The new ultra-fast wireless canopy technologies that are starting to come out in metros should bridge that gap pretty fast. Wireless works better and cheaper in places like the US. Fiber bandwidth in the US is all but free currently and quite frankly better than the European fiber networks, but putting in laterals is unreasonably expensive in most places due to the distances involved.

Since you bothered to answer me, I bother to give you more detailed information about my (and your) assumption.

The first read I suggest is by Paul Erdman . That's explain some peculiarities of US CEOcracy ,and incidentally helps to explain why 50% of the US wealth is perceived by 20% of the population, while in Europe the richer fifth in given 32% of the wealth. Since you seem to have some basics in maths,with a pro capita GDP 36000$ in the US and 24.000$ in Europe: (36.000:100)*50/80=22.500 ; (24.000:100)*68/80=20.400 ,I don't see such big differences in the "medium class" wealth between the US and Europe (if not that US medium class workers work longer hours & have less social protection). Another rough numeric consideration:the pro capita GDP in Europe is 2/3 that of the US,adults working are some 70% in the US, 60% in Europe,average hours worked a week (including overtime) are 40 in Europe ,some 50 in the US => productivity per hour are roughly the same in Europe and the US. Perhaps you are a famous economist so you belong to the upper class. Well, I'm not and I would be very angry if my CEO wold earn from the company 100 times more than me. Another reason why I say US companies can indulge in overoptimism that lead to overinvestment that lead to wealth destruction (since the value of a capital investment, i.e. in tecnhologic plants can fall fast)is the return on capital . It's also foolish that US stocks regulary beats that from other major stock markets, see 1990-2000 time series and p/e ratios dividends 1990-2000 . I add that, as I know , US small investors find hard to buy directly foreign financial instruments: my online broker let me to operate on the 3 major european stock echanges(for a 0.13% fee on any transaction) plus WS for a fixed 9$ a transaction. I think I got better diversification opportunities than the average US trader.

Apparently you don't understand what the trade deficit really means either. The trade deficit measures material goods only, not the huge raft of other economic activities which do not fall in that category.

I didn't expect such a mistake from you. Fist of all, the trade deficits/surpluses are calculated on goods&services. I agreee that some services tradings are hard to track, but that's true in the two ways:do you think it's easy to calculate exactly how many ten of billions American tourists leave in Europe? Moreover ,do you think all the products of the infromation technology are "valuable" in the sense the can pump up revenues? It's some 20 years I traffick with computers ,do you really think I buysoftware? And since the broadband came, do you really think I buy music/movies? Some immaterial goods,despite their intrinsic value, could not be a sure source of revenues from foreign markets with a loose enforcement of copyright rules (if it doens't hurt locals). At least ,if it really happens that the next Iraqi governor will be an American general,I will feel morally free to violate copyrights on American products for the rest of my life. About all the other thing you mentioned:banking/financial/engineering/managing services,university education for foreigners, do you thing the US have the monopoly on this? The war on terrorism is having the effect to redirect wealth Arab youngs on our shores,in search of superior education from an un-hostile enviroment. You surely know that the best univesities from continental Europe hold their courses in English

I also know that your main export are US dollar bills,and it doens't reassure me about the stability of the world financial system. It implies that the US economy is perpetually posed to post bigger wealth creation that others,and to return any time things/services that foreign dollar holders consider "valuable". I frankly doubt it since the best word to describe it is "leveraged",more than "competitive". One of my secret fears (as a worldwide investor) is that in the future ,facing a financial collapse, the US would impose taxes on alliates as a repayment for "defense". That's why I warmly support a progressive and constant reduction of US troops in Europe. As you could imagine ,I think the war on Iraq would be driven by economic reasons.

About housing. Well,I would have posted a nice graph from The Economist but I didn't retrieve it. It shows that,among major economies, just Germany and Japan have a weaker housing market than the US. There are markets (UK,Spain) that experienced double digit price growths for years. But in no way it is common outside the US to ask loans as long as the value of one household's house increases. Incidentally it means that ,despite the differences in income,the average net wealth of any European family is higher that of the American counterpart => EU people are better suited to face unexpected crisis => less bankrupcies => less criminality,more social cohesion...but that's not the theme of such thread.

See you.

You said the United States are a principle: I agree. I can't say Europe is a principe,it's a pot of principles,ideas, but there are some common denominators that mark a sharp difference vs. the United States.

I'm a leftist, but in no way I'm a socialist:I love free market, favorable business enviroments, I hate infernal bureaucracy,granted-for-life jobs, pensions to people in their early 50s. I got passports of 2 EU countries, I know quite well Spain,Sweden,Germany,Italy because I got relatives and lived there in different periods. So I'm one of the strange few animals that can call themselves "Europeans". Perhpas you have noticed that I didn't say "I hate high taxes". Infact I don't hate high taxes,in principle. I had the experience to live in some areas where services were VERY good,and I'm the living proof of this,since in my early years I had diverse and prolonged medical surgeries/treatments. Without them, my actual life woulnd't be excellent as it is. And in no way my family could have paid for that,much less if I were form one of that American families without healt insurance. I experienced (enjoyed) some high-taxes = great services enviroments (and those were the richest area of Europe too,what a contraddiction!), and I know they aren't utopia, only they are hard to preserve since greed & dishonestty easly infect politicians,as well as the creation of niches of privileges protected by layers of bureaucracy

"Big governments" can be a "productive" way of administrate a community only when institutions,public services work as they were private companies. I think most of EU big loads and red tapes are at a national level. The central EU government should manage foreign policy and defense. Most economic,social,fiscal policies should be decided at a local level,since Europeans are very tied to their local communities,that can be very different in term of needs and potentials. So my favorite model of Europe is that of a "federation of regions", with national goverments little more than empty boxes. In this way local governors would have more powers and would be under the vigilant scrutiny of the local community,that could identify a resposable for mismanagements. Now the EU is bureaucratic,that's true,there are too many,conflicting, decisional levels. Some politicians occupy more seats,and it isn't clear who elected them. If a local community (that could be made of millions of people,not necessarily a small village) want wealth redistribution and expensive social services,it could be competitive,if it works like an organization in a competitive enviroment. It worked for whole EU countries in the past (remember old grand Western Germany?). It works for some regional-sized countries now: notably the Netherland and Finland who ranks at the top of world competitiveness tables (with the US) see this and that .

Another chapter. The US people where mainly populated by Europeans that where of two kinds:the ones that didn't find their place at home,because they where unhappy of the local community or where rejected by it. Those who remained were feeling comfortable in the local community ,with or without a valuable position in it. Anyway the key is the community,call it family,village or region. Americans have a community ,that is made of the whole US,that's way they easily travel to change job or look for fortune. And that's way they don't ask the community anything but a battlefield to fight freely and gain their wealth/power. (Most) Europeans want also a safenet, a guarantee that if anything goes wrong in your life you are not rejected, your sons will not be ghetto's rubbish. No private insurance can give you this. In "the land of opportunity" (the US) a significant part of your life is decided by birth:your race,the wealth of your family is a strong limit/agevolation to what you can become. A battlefield with big prizes for the winners vs a race where the last is given a cup of tea too.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.