Hey, thanks for the replies
- It's interesting to note that some people take it for granted that disclosure means governments admitting the
existence of ET and ET visitations/habitations. It is also interesting to note that some believe that it is absurd to think that disclosure is totally
unrelated to a possible WW3 - especially interesting because we do not know for a fact that any disclosure is forthcoming/required and we certainly do
not know the actual content of any disclosure. This means that we can't rule out the possibility that a government that is resisting disclosure is
actually preventing a potential WW3 due to the content being protected.
I would say that disclosure does not necessarily mean the revelation of ET. Disclosure may be something entirely different. It could be the revelation
of a technology that could be deemed a threat. An example: let's say that North Korea hijacked the airwaves tomorrow announcing that it had made a
significant scientific breakthrough that made way for a weapon that could wipe out a small country in a matter of moments. I think that North Korea
would be a sheet of glass quicker than Barack Obama could say 'press the button'! Could that trigger WW3?
Imagine if the US revealed that it had this technology. Russia would be more than concerned. Have a think back to when the US informed the world it
was setting up a semi-effective shield system near Russia to take down potential threats from other nearby countries - not Russia. Were we not close
to another cold-war-esque stand off then?
In the case of an ET disclosure, the potential for WW3 could remain a possible outcome. Imagine that the US alone has been using ET technology
recovered from Roswell et al in order to fight off an ET presence for the past 50+ years? The reason for the ET presence targeting the US only? The US
is the only country to have used a nuclear weapon as an act of aggression against another country. Twice. Could this make them a suitable target for
an ET presence that was responisble for shaping the evolution of mankind?
If you was Russia and you found out that this was going on due the disclosure, what would you do? Would you take sides with the US, put your country
in the firing line and try to repeal the ET presence? Or would you lend a helping hand to the ET presence, attack the US, become the No.1 super power
and have a new alliance with a mighty ET presence?
The idea that an external threat would bring mankind together is a nonsense in my opinion. Mankind is not beautiful. It is not moral. What it is is
abhorent. We see it every day. People starving to death because they have no food and no water. They have no medicine to treat easily treatable
diseases because the medication is patented and costs too much. The world turns round for money, by money. This is not mankind being great so let's
drop the hippy trip. I would conceed that life itself is a wonder and is beautiful but we as a species have very little or nothing to sing about when
it comes to looking out for each other.
We have had a chance to help each other and we haven't done it. We still let people starve and we still have corporations trashing the planet. No
evidence of mankind getting together there either.
It seems that the only time the world gets together these days is for World Cup football.
Do we need a WW3 to make things right? I am not sure that all that suffering and pain is necessary. We have enough suffering and pain happening right
now, every day, and that should be enough for people and governments to turn things around and make things right. Surely?!
[edit on 8/6/2009 by skibtz]