« VodkaPundit writes about 3 things you should write about in High School... | Main | New super-fast way to make carbon nano-tube material.. »
August 10, 2005
Cicero on the Sitzkrieg's End...
Cicero, writing at Donklephant talks about how we used to live in a world where MAD made the future very simple.
- The rules of M.A.D. — all or nothing — gave us a false sense of safety during the Cold War. In an all-or-nothing world mired in a vast global political struggle, each side could attain relative normalcy. Normal life was disproportionate to the high stakes of the nuclear standoff — and we got used to it. All those layers of morality we built over that blinding apocalyptic core of immaculate annihilation could work a lot of miracles, providing that the promise of destruction was mutual, and total.
It turns out the Cold War amounted to an entire half century of having it all, creating nominal safety. The nothing part of M.A.D. — Armageddon — never came to pass. And so we did indeed create a playground of prosperity: Shopping malls, freeways, cheap global travel, and the Internet; the plethora of things, rock-n-roll, the rise of socialism and multiculturalism; baseball, apple pie and Chevrolet. We got very used to that. Three generations grew up in the soil of transparent global war...
Since 9/11 we have enjoyed the seemingly endless dawn of Sitzkrieg — a period of declared emergency, but undeclared war. Our malls remain open, and gasoline flows freely. The housing market is hot. Mobilization for war is something we read about. But now there are multiple indications that terrorist nukes are either here, or coming, or in the making. Perhaps this is a long way off; perhaps it’s hearsay; perhaps it is close at hand. But if we want a meaningful definition of centrism, it should be something that can withstand the shocks of catastrophic terror. Discussing mega-terror should be on the centrist’s table, since 9/11 changed the rules. What are 9/11’s rules? That catastrophe can happen anytime, anyplace, to anyone, with no warning or apparent reason. On an unthinkable scale.
I found this first comment to the essay very thought-provoking...
- I agree, and sadly the Democratic Party lags far behind the Reps in discussing the post-9/11 world. Much of the Party believes that if it can JUST get rid of Bush, dump Israel and run away from Iraq, the world will go back to 1996. Stupid but there you go. Escalation is part and parcel of the new, distributed threats we face from Islam that simply cannot accomodate Modern society. The Discovery Space shuttle was piloted by the woman commander, yet women in Saudi Arabia cannot even drive and have to live inside tents. In a shrinking world through the internet and satellite TV, jet travel this is a recipe for confrontation.
One or more of our cities WILL get nuked, if you believe Sam Nunn and www.nti.org. The question is, what will be the response? I believe the Dems must act NOW to articulate a framework for nuclear response, otherwise the reaction will be escalation on the part of the US beyond what people can conceive. “Solving” the problem by simply destroying the Muslim World, largely.
We do NOT face destruction of the entire World. Muslim extremists/terrorists can destroy three or four of our cities (likely with an Iranian, Pakistani, or North Korean set of nukes), but not the entire country. WE certainly can kill everyone in Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt if we wished. No one could or would stop us if we lost, say, San Diego and Dallas. Three to nine million dead Americans through nuclear terror would certainly provoke a demand for 300-400 million dead “enemies” on the part of the American people...
We really need to talk about this now, before it happens, instead of letting the terror and anger of the moment be the time we first talk about what to do...
Posted by rakhier at August 10, 2005 08:27 PM