International violence and UK security.

Inadequate integration will always have a 'knock-back' on the society that fails in its obligations. I know of no country that has been able to absorb fully an immigrant population without long lasting problems - mainly because of the differing cultures by which all races identify themselves.

The biggest problem France has to face will be from 'home-grown' jihads, encouraged by outside influences. Same here but not to the same extent. We fail by dint of apathy and lack of resource and to some extent 'being too familiar' in order not to offend.

Integration HAS to be enforced in order for it to work. Left to their own devices, immigrants will 'cluster' and make little effort to assimilate into a different culture. IN OTHER WORDS WE HAVEN'T BEEN TOUGH ENOUGH BY INSISTING ON INTEGRATION ON BOTH SIDES. ---- Having said that there would still be some instances of racial tension manifested by both parties through a human dislike of one another - that's natural.

Long term problems do tend to get 'kicked into the long grass'. It would be nice to have more long grass, but as the world goes on, wildflower meadows become rarer.

Evolution will take care of man's inadequacies regardless of our leaders incompetences. By the turn of this century many of the present ills will have been settled one way or another - mainly through violence and we will (not you and me) enter a century of emancipation of the species, or their total obliteration. I don't know because I won't be there. That's just my long term view of the unnatural progression of species when fettered by the intelligence of a suspect nature.

But by then one would hope that the more stable of our race might have found sanctuary amongst the stars to 'start' again. The next time with the knowledge that man is an inferior being, incapable of rational thought and thus should not be in control of himself or others of his species. Perhaps then the universe might just have a proper meaning for 'its' existence. - Who knows !!!! ????

Who knows indeed?  On the same subject, of 'what's it all about, alfie?', the famous 'Julian of Norwich' wrote about her visions, in about year 1400. This is what she said about one of them.  

And in this he showed me a little thing, the quantity of a hazel nut, lying in the palm of my hand, as it seemed. And it was as round as any ball. I looked upon it with the eye of my understanding, and thought, 'What may this be?' And it was answered generally thus, 'It is all that is made.' I marveled how it might last, for I thought it might suddenly have fallen to nothing for littleness.   .   .   .

Then a few centuries later, along came Darwin and invented evolution. How we understand things is a continuing and changing story. Could humans ever go to live in other galaxies, or is that just sci-fi escapism? For now, we need to calm and reduce the war-killing in our world. Will humans evolve an immunity to propaganda?

As with the boy who cried 'wolf' our species will become inured to the constant 'information' being spread by one side or the other. Belief will vanish from the majority and be replaced with apathy and discontent - but insufficient to arouse sufficient numbers to despoil as the 'claimers' cling to power.
In the year 2163 the earth will be destroyed -.

If Earth is more or less destroyed in the year 2163 or thereabouts, humans might be on Mars by then, with a hydroponic fish and lettuce farm.

Some of those who study and interpret ancient stones think the planets Earth and Mars have both had catastrophies in the distant past, and life has moved accordingly to and fro, from one planet to the other.

They may well be correct. But given technology is now doubling every ten months I suspect that our solar system, which houses at least a billion other planets of a similar ilk as our own, will provide for a far more conducive environment than that of Mars. But Mars will be in the equation for staging purposes.

We really ought to work out how to live on this planet before looking for another.

Tch and double tch. Now you are demanding sanity. That is insane and shows you are thinking from the heart again. Time waits for no man and technology and exploration are the same. Forget Utopia and look for another useful planet for it is without question you will find the latter first.

Not so much a demand, more a helpful hint. Even if we develop interstellar travel and colonise other planets, it's doubtful whether that will involve moving the entire population of earth.

For entirely practical reasons, if anyone gives a hoot, we do need to find a more sustainable way of living here on Earth.

Some say wars are essential to reduce population numbers, but that view is becoming less fashionable. It's not an entirely satisfactory answer for today, resulting, as it does, in populations of traumatised, stressed and damaged people.

Do security organisations, here and abroad have a new role to play, a different emphasis in their work, more a 'safeguarding' role. Rather than helping to win wars, is it more a matter of preventing them, and preventing them from spreading?

Prevention is always better than cure. But for that you need intelligence AND common-sense and the two rarely go together. The common-sense does eventually catch up with the intelligent moves but by then the damage has always been done and is thus far more difficult to repair. Containment now being a very remote possibility as fifth columns can so easily be put in place with today's 'freedoms' of movement.

War has always been extremely useful at reducing populations if one takes the 20c wars approx 100 million dead and then multiplies 50 million males and their offspring over 100 years you would now have a world population already passed the 10 billion mark. Natural disasters and accidental deaths (death before prime time) is less than a quarter of the deaths by war figure and wouldn't be nearly as effective as has been death by war. Read into that what you will.

Technology will find a way of sustaining life on this planet but I fear that the choices will only be for the selected and required numbers. The vast majority of the population will be left to survive however they can. - once - we have acquired the ability to move populations elsewhere.

It will be illegal to enter the 'New World' and all attempts will be met with 'deadly force'.

It's called the 'survival of the species'. Paramount will be 'the strongest'. So Darwin was right after all.

The job for security services at the moment is defending the UK against Islamic state inspired terrorism, which we see attempting to disrupt europe by butchery and intimidation.

With more armed police appearing in London and French armed police landing on channel ferries, such defence does appear to be on the agenda.

In Darwinian terms, luck seems to play some part in what survives and what doesn't, but effective defence is important for long term survival. Aggression arguably less so?

International and home grown terrorism has been with us since the dawn of time and has phases where it appears to be more prevalent - as now. Since Tudor times the efforts to thwart such events has been part of the 'social' agenda and I don't doubt it will continue as such until the end of the present century.
In Darwinian terms luck has always played a part in survival but has been more concentrated towards man's ingenuity since our species entered the arena. In human terms - only the strongest and most required will survive the ultimate catastrophes that the planet is going to embark upon as the 'strongest' will be the referees towards who survives and who doesn't.

Difficult to see this particular wave of terrorism into Europe lasting until the end of this century. If it continues even a few years, european powers will be pretty much forced to respond. Whether wars later in the century will be fought with terror or with nuclear weapons is unpredictable.

The only danger from nuclear war comes from terrorists obtaining the 'right' materials. In other words 'lunatics with crazy-sticks'. No self-respecting government will chance the use of nuclear attack as they are aware the consequences and the futility of destroying the advantages gained.
As for terror - attacks. They will continue across the globe for the rest of the century. Education of the masses is a double -edged blade. The cleverest will take advantage and lead others to despoil in order for personal power and wealth. Religions will play the part of 'cause'. Which as we know is purely a 'blind' for the ignorant, the infant and the very poor. Such is our lot and those that we have given birth to including our grandchildren. Beautiful world isn't it.

'Night of the killer zombies' type stuff is popular entertainment, the heroes being applauded for killing the zombies, because, although they walk (with a touch of rigor mortis) and talk (in a groany sort of way), their brains have been invaded by a virus and they are no longer human.

Gosh. I know a few people like that. And here's me thinking they were just normal. Wow.

They've probably seen a zombie programme on the telly and are just copying it.  

On the subject of mad men with machetes, another has been shot dead in Belgium,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36998449
As he hacked a policewoman in the face with his machete, witnesses reported he was shouting "alahu-akbar". As discussed before this phrase roughly translates for practical purposes as "Lookout! I'm armed, insane, and about to commit mass murder."

A good response from another police officer nearby, shooting the machete man dead. All bad news, but at least he was stopped pretty quick.

We are faced with multiple attempts of terrorism by disenfranchised/ disgruntled/psychotic humans the planet over. One latest brain-stormed attempt on the FI Singapore circuit - targeted missiles from 10 miles away. Attempted kidnap and butchering of sole service men and women. Ram-killings and mass shootings - and the list is endless -. ordinary people living ordinary lives by the billion all targets of ease and simplicity. Guerilla terror is the most pernicious yet easiest form of terrorism and the one that is the hardest to counter. As said before - this is not a new phenomenon. It is the lot of this new generation to fight it as best they can and hope to eventually neuter its effects upon their society. The only upside - it's better than World Wars -.

The 'style' of terrorism has changed, terrorists are no longer pleased with killing people and destroying buildings, the emphasis seems to be on the butchery side of things, as if making innocent people suffer and making videos of it is going to achieve something. Is it? I don't think so. It's almost as though some people have got a brain virus that makes them behave like that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqQ8Y9Sjp7o

For the 'star chamber' members of those organisations that promote 'terrorism' the effect mostly sought is one of 'shock and horror'. The more grotesque the killing the more publicity for the cause.
The deluded idiots that take on board these fantasies are as you describe suffering from a 'brain virus' easily planted in the right quarters i.e. usually young, ethnic, inadequately developed loners or two or more gathered of the same ilk. Deluded religious fervour can sometimes be the catalyst and has the effect of drawing those most prone towards a collective action e.g. ISIS. The only cure is two fold - either those affected become to realise the futility of their actions and try to extricate themselves or we obliterate them in total. Either way is the only way short of all the world's finances are put towards ensuring all the young get proper education, food, shelter and pocket-money to enjoy life in a proper secure environment. Which do 'you' think it is going to be -?

I don't know.

Then you should. Logic against reality. Answer - reality.

Of the options you present, none seem entirely compatible with reality.

The reality is that we stick with that which is the most acceptable to the powers that be. i.e. the first one - sort yourself out or we obliterate you. Simples. And the next piece of cannon-fodder is - a suicide bomber, a suicide bomber. Animal , vegetable or mineral. Answer - all 3.