[118806] in Cypherpunks
Re: IP: Editorial: Apocalypse Soon
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steve Schear)
Fri Oct 8 11:06:40 1999
Message-Id: <4.1.19991007125037.045b5460@popserver.com21.com>
Message-Id: <4.1.19991007125037.045b5460@popserver.com21.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 13:08:17 -0700
To: believer@telepath.com
From: Steve Schear <schear@lvcm.com>
Cc: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
In-Reply-To: <v04210187b42135095f47@[207.244.110.174]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To: Steve Schear <schear@lvcm.com>
At 01:19 PM 10/6/99 -0400, Robert Hettinga wrote:
>Source: Washington Times
>http://www.WashTimes.com/opinion/ed3.html
>
> Apocalypse soon
>----------
>By Tony Blankley
>----------
[much deleted...]
> So, sit back, ingest your calming substance or liquid of preference
>and behold the near future, just as it has been reported to Secretary of
>Defense William Cohen two weeks ago.
>
> Weapons of mass nuclear, chemical and biological destruction will
>proliferate. We should expect conflicts in which our adversaries, because
>of "cultural affinities different from our own, will resort to forms and
>levels of violence shocking to our sensibilities." The United States will
>often be dependent on allies, "but it will find reliable alliances more
>difficult to establish and sustain."
>
> The report goes on to conclude that despite the fact that the United
>States will be, both absolutely and relatively, the most powerful nation on
>Earth, and despite the lack of a global competitor, we will be "limited in
>our ability to impose our will, and we will be vulnerable to an increasing
>range of threats."
>
> "States, terrorists, and other disaffected groups will acquire weapons
>of mass destruction and mass disruption, and some will use them. Americans
>will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers."
>
>
> The faith of our fathers abides, and I hope that the stock market does
>too. But, in a presidential and congressional election period, shouldn't
>there also be a vigorous debate on the policies necessary to avoid or
>minimize the calamity of mass death of Americans from nuclear or biological
>attack?
>
> The report goes on to describe a world in which U.S. intelligence and
>diplomacy will be inadequate to protect our interests and security. The
>continued advance of the global economy and technology will destabilize
>nations and cultures, resulting in anti-technology backlashes. Those same
>forces will "batter the concept of national sovereignty." Some important
>nations "will not be able to manage these challenges and could fragment and
>fail." Nationalism, ethnic and religious violence will rise, creating
>"humanitarian disasters, major catalytic regional crises and the spread of
>dangerous weapons."
>
> "Big ideas" will spread quickly around the globe, and the "stage will
>be set for mass action to have social impact beyond the borders and control
>of existing political structures." The United States will "increasingly
>find itself wishing to form coalitions but increasingly unable to find
>partners willing and able to carry out combined military operations."
>
> In other words, according to the 14 sober and serious-minded
>commissioners who filed this report --and represent the very heart of our
>political-business-military-foreign policy establishment -- the world is
>going to become unhinged in the next 25 years. They judge that we will
>neither be able to manage the global chaos abroad, nor stop it from reaping
>its terrible harvest here on the soil and in the flesh of our heartland.
>
> But, awash as we are in our technology's unending flood of information
>-- and with no one place left to gather as a nation to think about our
>collective future -- we ignore these warnings, even as we are thrilled by
>Mr. Gore's change-of-address announcement.
None of this should come as surprise. All empires, a don't doubt for a
minute doubt many abroad view us as an empire, raise and fall. Technology
can often be a two-sided proposition. As the Goths showed Rome that its
great roads could be traveled both ways. so too will the smaller
disaffected be able to build, acquire, and use many of the same weapons of
mass destruction the super powers threatened one another. Only this time
the threat of mutually assured destruction, which seemed to temper even the
most bellicose during the Cold War, will be absent. It may be difficult or
impossible to identify the responsible parties and offer an
suitable/effective response.
The future is not all bleak, however, as these new weapons capabilities in
the hands of many will lead to the reduction in the importance and
capabilities of the nation states which spawned this mess, as it will also
lead to an aincrease in the number and influence of super-empowered
individuals. One might think of this process as a form of feedback,
tempering the virtually unchecked growth of the major powers during this
century.
--Steve
