ALL THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO WORLD WAR
If the consequences of this statement are to be avoided then the truth of the statement must be accepted.
The pattern of history points to another global,
catastrophic conflict (more details at the link below).
Power, manifested as interest, has been present in every conflict of the past –
no exception. It is the underlying motivation for war. Other cultural factors
might change, but not power. Interest cuts across all apparently unifying
principles: family, kin, nation, religion, ideology, politics - everything. We
unite with the enemies of our principles, because that is what serves our
interest. It is power, not any of the above concepts, that is the cause of war.
The lust for power eventually brings
every empire to the war it seeks to avoid: total defeat. But leaders and their
advisors delude themselves into thinking that fateful war can be avoided,
limited in scale or even won.
This has particular relevance today,
with much talk of ‘a new Cold War’, and the dangerous mind set it will have the
same outcome as the first one. Other terms from that era are being bandied
about, such as ‘deterrence’ and ‘nuclear arms race’. Deterrence can only work
if it can prevent the scenarios where Mutual Assured Destruction might have to be
resorted to. It is becoming increasingly difficult to prevent such situations –
Syria, Iran, South China Sea, Ukraine, the Baltic, Moldova to name a few
potential flash points, any of which could trigger events leading to world war.
We will soon face the scenario where (unlike the Cuban missile crisis or Euro
missile crisis) one protagonist will not be able to step back from the brink,
stumbling into a crisis they cannot de-escalate. All that is left is
Deterrence’s fall-back position – annihilation. The nuclear powers will delude
themselves that the outcome of this crisis will be like in 1991: ending without
destruction. There’s a difference, the Cold War was the peace, a post-world war
environment; we are now in a pre-world war environment.
Nuclear war will happen because
governments convince themselves it won’t: it will be prevented because
peace-makers convince themselves it will. That is the paradox. Only by
accepting its inevitability is there any chance of stopping it; at that, the
chances are negligible if they exist at all. Personally, I don’t think they do,
but accept others have a more positive outlook. I admire them. But a problem denied can never be
solved (however big or small it is). To save the planet, reverse climate
change, make a better and just life for all will not be achieved if we walk blindly
into a third world war. So:
SAY YES TO NUCLEAR WAR
Comments
Post a Comment