Showing posts with label apocalypse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label apocalypse. Show all posts

Sunday, November 14, 2021

EXISTENTIAL THREATS

 


By definition, the United States as an aspirational democratic-Republic will not survive an authoritarian takeover. Since our main authoritarians are self-described Nationalists, the American nation, as they define it, will.
CoViD-19 may get horrific. However, Eurasian civilization and perhaps half or more of its people survived Bubonic Plague and The Black Death, and its harming European feudal society was on balance a good thing. We'll survive CoViD-19, but it's caused by a pretty robust zoonotic virus with the potential for mutations that could ravage large populations.
Climate change from (basically) global warming is a major threat, but civilization and most humans and other organisms — including some large ones — will survive and some may prospser (those of us in hot, dry places, or near oceans, are in serious danger).
As Daniel Ellsberg shows in his much praised, popularly ignored book The Doomsday Machine (2017), Stanley Kubrick did his homework and DR. STRANGELOVE is farcical in tone but documentary in substance. Kubrick's one major error was saying the official policy of the US was that we wouldn't initiate nuclear warfare: our official policy since at least Eisenhower is that, under some conditions, we would (source: Ellsberg and my MilSci courses in the early 1960s). Kubrick got right:
 
• The public policy of the US is that the US President has "sole authority" over use of nuclear weapons (and can use that authority at any time for any reason: think about that with your least-favorite US President). However, to assure 2nd strike capability, presidents since Eisenhower have delegated authority — or at least have been believed by the relevant people to have done so — to "lower echelon commanders." Whatever their dedication to Central Control, since the Carter and Reagan buildup (and as far as we know continuing since the more recent build-down), the "Ruskies" have done the same. And for the same reasons: credible threat of retaliation in case of "decapitation." In a number of highly unlikely but possible scenarios, any remaining "Launch on Warning" missiles might *be* launched.
 
• "General Nuclear War" — all-out and thermonuclear — could destroy civilization in the Northern Hemispheres, starting with all those cities that are the root of the word "civilization."
• General Nuclear War with a significant number of ground-burst nuclear and thermonuclear weapons threatens to start a global winter leading to global famines (etc.) and threatening civilization world-wide, and, if sufficiently prolonged, large-scale extinctions of many species of animals and plants and other organisms dependent on sunlight.
 
The EXISTENTIAL THREAT to humans and a number of other species remains nuclear warfare.
But no b.s. on "destroying the planet" or "destroying life on Earth." "Earth abides," as Ecclesiastes and a post-apocalyptic novel title has it, and life on Earth will survive: the vast majority of living things are non-vertebrates, a number of whom don't need sunlight. Or will survive until the sun goes nova or other cosmic calamity. We might not; a whole lot of vertebrates and fancy-bodied eukaryotes might not. What we arrogantly call "prokaryotic" — like Nature was just chomping at the bit to evolve cells with nuclei — what we think of as primitive life forms will make it through yet again. They were here before us by billions of years, and they well may outweigh us in biomass and/or outnumber us in genes.
But for us, as we think of us, Nukes remain the only Weapons of Mass Destruction and Existential Threat. Let's pay more attention.

Tuesday, January 2, 2018

Kim Jong Un & Donald J. Trump: Buttons, Tweets, Potency, and Apocalypse

"North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the 'Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.' Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!" — Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, 2 January 2018

This is the way the world ends*
(For many humans, and other species);
This is how the world ends
(Worse goes to worst,
"Depending on the breaks"),
This is why the world ends:
From a tweet* and a brag,
And measuring 
Symbolic cocks.
                                    * With thanks to Jeffrey Weinstock (well, and T.S. Eliot and Gen. "Buck" Turgidson)


The Congress of the United States needs to write us a bit of law renouncing the current U.S. doctrine of First Use (nuclear) and restricting the power of the U.S. President to use nukes for anything but proportionate retaliation. I'd also add a provision that in case of nuclear "exchange," the duty station of the Commander-in-Chief is wherever s/he might be, and forbidding spending any money to move the President to safety. If a President gets us into a nuclear war, the very least s/he can do is to get killed in the first exchange.

And on this utterly depressing, apocalyptic subject, I'll pass along the suggestion from a couple or three decades back that the final part of the launch codes should not be in the "football" that accompanies the President but near the heart in the chests of the people carrying the football, and, of course, carrying also a knife. To launch the missiles [etc.], the President would have to cut open the chest of the attaché — the logic being that if the situation warrants a nuclear response, it justifies murdering a single person, and insisting that the murder be up-close, personal, and messy. The logic is that bombing and missile attacks are way too abstract all down the line and that a key part of initiating nuclear warfare should be a death with emotional power and deep-seated inhibitions. Perhaps, though, the code should be in the chest of the President, and s/he should have to order a high-ranking official to do the cutting. I am serious here, following Konrad Lorenz on the dangers of being able to kill at distances that reduce inhibitions.



Monday, April 24, 2017

About that Christian Mercy …

           John M. Crisp introduces an excellent column on "Solving the puzzle of children, war" (17 April 2017) with the Christian trope contrasting the "god of wrath and battles" of much of the "Old Testament" with the kinder, gentler God of the New.
            It's not that simple. The peace-and-love Jesus of the Beatitudes goes on to say, figuratively, "[…] I have not come to bring peace but a sword" (Matthew 5.2-12, 10.34). And both figuratively and Prophetically, John of Patmos presents a kick-ass Christ in his Apocalypse, "clad in a robe dipped in blood," with a "sharp sword with which to smite the nations" and "tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God," crushing the unsaved like grapes (Revelation 19.13-16). Later in the Book of Revelation, we get beautiful visions of "a new heaven and a new earth," for the saved. "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars" — and later members of the wrong church, or those God just chose to damn — "their lot shall be in the lake that burns" forever (20.1, 4; 21.8).
            In history, in A.D. 1099, the takingof Jerusalem to climax the First Crusade included a massacre near Temple Mount where Christian sources concede or brag, "[…] the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles [...]" — or bridles and knees. "None of them" — Muslims in the area — "were left alive; neither women nor children were spared." The Jews of Jerusalem were burned.
            Deusvult; God willed it.
            So there's Jesus's " mercy and peace" that Crisp says, "we've never really tried"; and that lack of trying goes far back. Since antiquity, many have accepted Jesus only once that wimpy preaching gets toughened up.



Saturday, December 12, 2015

Hanukkah 2015: Afghanistan, Syria, ISIL


            I'm preparing this blog post at the end of Hanukkah 5776, which is in mid-December 2015, Christian style, or near the start of the month of Rabi' al-awal, 1437 A.H., i.e., counting, as Muslims do, from the Hijra of Mohammed.
            I use the different dates not because they're important in themselves, but just to remind Christians that the scientifically-calibrated Gregorian calendar may be the best-est, most accurate, most convenient calendar, but that it's the Gregorian calendar and a calendar, not the calendar and the only one around. All God's children — or at least Abraham's — got calendars and reckon time, but not all in terms of A.D., Anno Domini, "in the year of our" — or the — "Lord."
            I'm also recycling below much of a blog from "a Yule Tide" in 2009, in which additional American troops were "gearing up for the war in Afghanistan," and I asked readers to momentarily contemplate the much discussed "true meaning of Christmas and wonder what The Prince of Peace might think about that move," continuing what we used to call in the Vietnam era, a dirty little war. I noted that, applying What Would Jesus Say?, "hawks can always cite Jesus's saying he came not to bring peace 'but a sword' (Matthew 10.34)" — and noted that "truth be told, we humans have never been keen on 'Blessed be the meek' and 'resist not evil,' or turning the other cheek to be hit, or more generally like the peace-love-dove bits of Jesus's Sermon on the Mountain (Matthew 5.1-7.27). The kick-ass Christ as The Rider on the White Horse of the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse 19.11 f.) is the more relevant figure for most folk, most of the time, but He doesn't have a holiday.
            No, Christmas is the time of the Christ-Child and the paradox of unimaginable power getting itself incarnated in a helpless infant.
            Now in another time of tribulations (and this time with Donald Trump moving US political discussion toward open belligerence), now in a time of civil war in Syria, with the Great Powers and a number of lesser ones joining in — now is a time to again consider, as some might have in 2009, one true meaning of Hanukkah.
            Among other things, Hanukkah celebrates a successful insurrection (167-60 B.C.E.) by a movement led by religious zealots, first for an end to imperial suppression of their religion and then for national liberation and a return to religious purity: a struggle to get the Greeks of the Seleucid Empire out of Judea, and to get the Greekified, elitist Jewish collaborators out of power or dead — and achieve a truly sovereign, fully independent, rigorously Jewish state.
            According to my old history book (Joseph Ward Swain, The Ancient World, volume 2 [© 1950]), if not according to my old rabbis, the struggle in Judea "was first and foremost between Hellenized and non-Hellenized Jews" — richer, better educated city-folk following newfangled Greek ways, versus those supporting the old ways — "with Greek troops supporting the former and the populace following the latter faction" (p. 202).
            It was a struggle that was probably classic back in the time of the Maccabees and certainly to become classic: state terror by the imperial Seleucid authorities alternating with rebel terrorism against collaborators and a "king's officer" here and there, followed by the rebels' fleeing to the hills. Soon, "[A]ll who became fugitives to escape their troubles joined them and reinforced them. They organized an army, and struck down sinners in their anger," i.e., Jews who accepted Greek culture, "and lawless men in their wrath; the survivors fled to the Gentiles for safety …" (1 Maccabees chs. 1-2, esp. 2.23-25, 2.43-44).
            And when the Seleucid Empire ran into difficulties elsewhere and couldn't suppress the rebellion, the traditionalist Jews got religious liberty restored, then the execution of a Hellenized, collaborating high priest, and, fairly soon — if only for a while — "complete national independence" (Swain 203-04).
            There's a moral here for superpowers: Keep your troops out of local conflicts, especially when those conflicts involve religion and nationalism — to say nothing of tribal rivalries; and stay out of wars in localities that may have strategic locations but really aren't worth fighting for. And do not try to impose your modern ways on others, however superior your ways might be or clearly are.
            As was said back in the 1960s, "'To liberate' is a reflexive verb": with a few blatant exceptions, you don't liberate others, people liberate themselves. However much Americans might have wanted to liberate Afghan women from Taliban zealotry, we could at most help those women with their own struggle. However much some worthy rebels might want to overthrow Bashar al-Assad and crush ISIL, there's only a limited amount of help we in the "Zionist-Crusader godless West" can do to help them.
            Most Afghans were happy to see the Taliban removed from power in 2001-02, but they became increasingly unhappy the longer we foreign infidels stuck around. Afghans are as tribal and faction-ridden as the ancient Jews, but the Afghan peoples have always managed to cooperate to expel a truly foreign occupation.
            Ditto in Iraq, at least of late.
            The Seleucids were one of the successor states to the empire of Alexander the Great, with a center of power in what is now Syria; and the Seleucids had their problems in Afghanistan, as did Alexander before them and the Persians before that. Afghanistan is "the place empires go to die" — the British and Russian more recently — and the best rule there is to get in if you must; do what you can to achieve some limited goals; and then get the hell out. If you can help the Afghans from a distance (which you should if you've killed a fair number of their people), do so generously.
            In a nastily ironic variation on a historical theme, the religious zealots of "the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant" — which includes Syria — are attempting to establish a political entity larger than Judea under the dynasty that arose from the Maccabees, and a state with ambitions that go beyond those of the Seleucids: a Caliphate that could, in theory, reach from Spain to Indonesia, and more immediately would include large hunks of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
            Back in 2009, I repeated the rule that Great Powers like the US as much as possible should keep our troops out of countries where they're not wanted, and should avoid sending troops to fight for one faction or tribal grouping against their rivals. Not unless one has time, resources, money, and troops to spare: lots of all of them. And America is running short.
            For a happy Hanukkah 5776, Lessons in Foreign Policy, aspect, we're should consider the probability that we Americans are like the Seleucid Empire in being over-extended, stressed, and in no position for an invasion of "the Levant" and a protracted war to suppress modern fanatics who make the Maccabees look like a Unitarian-sponsored Scout troop. At the same time, precisely because ISIS is both so vicious and viciously attractive to fanatics, we will need to do something the Seleucids would not do: cooperate with the other established states to contain ISIS and resist it with a light enough touch that it will "burn itself out" in a military/social parallel to the horrific ways highly lethal diseases "burn themselves out."
            Neither we, the British, French, Russians, nor for that matter the Iranians or Saudis (or the Israelis) have much skill with delicate touches, and the phrase is grotesque when it includes air-delivery of high explosives and training teenagers to kill people. Still, President Obama has the right instincts: as much as possible avoid putting military units in places where they'll be targets for fanatics and where they will produce more fanatics by killing fanatics (plus the inevitable deaths, wounding, and maimings summed up in the obscene euphemism, "collateral damage); indeed, avoid putting them in places, e.g., Saudi Arabia with its holy places, where their mere presence is a provocation..

            Like Christmas and other mid-winter holidays, Hanukkah offers hope that once the days get short enough, the sun will return for longer stays and spring will come. The history behind Hanukkah reminds us that figurative winters of warfare can be pretty damn long and deadly.

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Déjà Vu 2: Jihads and Crusades, 1095, 2003, 2015 (24 Feb. 2015)

As long as the old war hawks are recycling arguments from earlier eras, I'm going to recycle a counter-argument I made toward the end of January 2003, during the run-up to the Iraq War of March 2003 to 2011 (and counting). It's still relevant, unfortunately, for the "and counting" part: arguably, and even more unfortunately, more relevant given the rise of ISIS and the threat nor so much from ISIS but from a successor movement that's equally savvy in its organizing but a "kinder, gentler version" — which would still be vicious — and better organized.
 ==========================

              In commentary on "The 21st-Century Crusade" appearing in The Washington Post Weekly Edition for January 13-19 [2003], Dennis Mullin usefully analyzes the threat to world peace of militant Islam; his enthusiasm for a crusade to match the jihad, however, is at best badly timed.
              Eric Hoffer's 1951 book The True Believer makes some points Mullin and everyone else should keep in mind. If Hoffer is right, the undermining of traditional societies frees up large numbers of people to lead unsatisfying lives and is a major source of potential converts to mass movements. Also available for mass movements are people recently unemployed and people with education and no suitable jobs.
              Globalization and recession have produced a large number of potential True Believers, and there are religious and nationalistic mass movements actively recruiting or just waiting to happen not only among Muslims but also Jews, Hindus, Christians, and maybe Korean Communists.
              All that is missing is charismatic leadership, and there is a fair chance a crusade against Iraq will generate that leadership for many Muslims, possibly by making Saddam Hussein a hero (or martyr) of Islam.
              When fanatics march, things get deadly: estimates for deaths in World War II range between 40 and 61 million. Significantly, those deaths were barely a pause in the increase of Earth's human population. Since World War II, we have seen the proliferation of atomic weapons, and the desire Mullin cites for an "Islamic Bomb," to match what can be perceived as Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and godless Communist or secular Capitalist bombs.
              Everything did not change 11 September 2001; to re-date Albert Einstein's assessment, everything changed for humans some time in the 1960s, when the USA, USSR, and other nuclear powers accumulated enough weapons to destroy much of human civilization directly and perhaps all of human civilization, and the human species, through nuclear winter.
              One generation does not have the right to preclude or even endanger the existence of succeeding generations. Total nuclear disarmament is not currently possible, but before we Americans start crusading, we and the other nuclear powers need to destroy—not store, destroy—a large number of nuclear weapons. And then we need serious nonproliferation treaties.
              When Earth is safe again for war, we can start thinking about risking another forty to sixty million deaths and develop serious ways to resolve disputes that do not involve mass killing—and ways to capture, try, and put away for life fanatics who murder.
 ==========================
         Well, Saddam Hussein failed in his attempt to present himself as a defender of Islam — the attempt was a hell of a stretch on his part — and he never became a martyr of the faith, nor its leader; and more recent estimates on the body count for World War II, worldwide and from 1939-45, are up to 65 million, although people in Manchuria and Nanking people might assert that World War II began earlier than 1939, and, certainly, the dying continued after 1945.
         I'll stick with the point on nuclear and thermonuclear bombs as the truest weapons of mass destruction and the only weapons posing a literal existential threat to human civilization and the human species. Still, in 2015 — when Jihad is more likely than ever to provoke a crusade — a few words are needed on old-fashioned massacres and what can be done with merely Medieval technology of destruction and death.
         The words here aren't mine but one major and some minor witnesses to a literal Crusade, one of the crusades President Obama was chided for being "artless" and insensitive enough to throw into a conversation on fanaticism, suggesting that Christianity, too, has done some very bad thing because, some important people thought, "God wills it" (Deus vult!).
==================================

From Raymond d'Aguiliers: Historia francorum qui ceperint Jerusalem ["The History of the Franks who Captured Jerusalem"]
But now that our men had possession of the walls and towers, wonderful sights were to be seen. Some of our men (and this was more merciful) cut off the heads of their enemies; others shot them with arrows, so that they fell from the towers; others tortured them longer by casting them into the flames. Piles of heads, hands, and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one's way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small matters compared to what happened at the Temple of Solomon, a place where religious services are ordinarily chanted. What happened there? If I tell the truth, it will exceed your powers of belief. So let it suffice to say this much, at least, that in the Temple and porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies. The city was filled with corpses and blood. Some of the enemy took refuge in the Tower of David, and, petitioning Count Raymond for protection, surrendered the Tower into his hands.
WIKIPEDIA NOTE: However, this imagery should not be taken literally; it was taken directly from [the New Testament, Christian God-of-Wrath (RDE)] biblical passage Revelation 14:20. Writing about the Temple Mount area alone[,] Fulcher of Chartres […] says: "In this temple 10,000 were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared."  ¶ The eyewitness Gesta Francorum states that some people were spared. Its anonymous author wrote, "When the pagans had been overcome, our men seized great numbers, both men and women, either killing them or keeping them captive, as they wished." Later the same source writes, "[Our leaders] also ordered all the Saracen dead to be cast outside because of the great stench, since the whole city was filled with their corpses; and so the living Saracens dragged the dead before the exits of the gates and arranged them in heaps, as if they were houses. No one ever saw or heard of such slaughter of pagan people, for funeral pyres were formed from them like pyramids, and no one knows their number except God alone.
Now that the city was taken, it was well worth all our previous labors and hardships to see the devotion of the pilgrims at the Holy Sepulchre. How they rejoiced and exulted and sang a new song to the Lord! For their hearts offered prayers of praise to God, victorious and triumphant, which cannot be told in words. A new day, new joy, new and perpetual gladness, the consummation of our labor and devotion, drew forth from all new words and new songs. This day, I say, will be famous in all future ages, for it turned our labors and sorrows into joy and exultation; this day, I say, marks the justification of all Christianity, the humiliation of paganism, and the renewal of our faith.
Fordham University: The Jesuit University of New York, "Medieval Source Book: Raymond d'Aguiliers Historia francorum qui ceperint Jerusalem represents the experiences of chaplain of Raymond de Saint Gilles, Count of Toulouse, who lead the Southern French army of the First Crusade. Here. Selection 12, 'The Frankish Victory,' capturing Jerusalem, 15 July 1099. "



         Non-nuclear Wars of Religion would not threaten human survival; they would, however, produce horrible suffering and loss of life and, necessarily, at least a variety of new Dark Age.