Before science and
technology had risen to their present degree of sophistication, mankind
played out its aggressions through the selective destruction of itself;
i.e. the French Revolution, World War I & II, the Russian Revolution,
etc.. Today however, as a result of the advent of the atom, each new
conflict between nations accelerates the risk for world confrontation
and nuclear holocaust. What goes unrecognized is the fundamental
reason for why this has happened.
As we shall see, the answer is bound up to the continuous
alteration of human language and the ideas it sustains or can no longer
sustain in the face of
this compounding complexity.
In their most basic form, the concepts of "offense" and "defense"
constitute a dichotomy. This means that for every 'offense' there
is a corresponding 'defense' that acts as its "temporal qualifier."
Without such a 'qualifier,' idea cannot become temporally relevant to us.
This symbiotic relationship -- in the case of 'offense' and 'defense' -- IF held in
balance, always yields a stalemate that ensures mutual survival.
However, because of the continued impact of our thought process upon
knowledge, and its associated impact upon reality, this stabilizing
principle has now been compromised. The result is a reduction in
usable 'time' by which to implement the necessary 'defense'
required to moderate an existing 'offense.' Something necessary to
ensure human survival. With this safeguard gone, the only logical
idea capable of explaining the potential consequences of this breakdown is
that of "mutually assured
Time is an essential element to the human equation. Yet, in
today's environment, there is insufficient 'time' for conscious
reflection when it comes to averting impending destruction. Here's
why. Today, it takes approximately 17 minutes for a
nuclear-armed missile to travel between the two strongest nations on
earth. Submarine based missiles require just seven minutes to
achieve the same result. Countries, whose chief antagonists border
one another, like Israel and Syria, India and Pakistan or North and
South Korea, have less than 4 minutes to react. The same scenario will apply to Russia and eventually
China, if "defense
shield" missiles are placed in proximity to their borders --
reminiscent of the problem caused by "peace
keeping" missiles during Ronald Reagan's presidency. Their
placement on European soil caused a blatant "imbalance of power" that
wound up promoting new schemes of advantage on behalf of those threatened,
schemes that pushed the World closer and closer to the brink of nuclear war. Hence,
it had the opposite effect from the one intended by Reagan and his
military strategists. Thankfully, in that
case, the idiocy in this decision was exposed and the missiles were
withdrawn before incident. However, this prior "asininity" has now
found new life with today's mental midgets. And it too needs to be
exposed for what it is, before it causes an instability that
inadvertently leads to a nuclear exchange of
Bear in mind that the identification and subsequent verification of any
nuclear attack by adjacent powers, or weapons placed in proximity to
their borders, reduces retaliation time
(for vulnerable weapon systems) to less than 4 minutes -- provided
retaliation is going to be initiated before assets are destroyed.
Obviously, this is already untenable. And yet, on a daily basis,
technology seeks ways to decrease this 'time' interval -- and, there is
no reason to believe that it will not be successful.
Four minutes is definitely insufficient 'time' in which to
initiate a 'defense.' Even an idiot knows that. The exposure
of this fact caused deception to enter the picture
in order to forestall further discovery of what amounted to a military
blunder. It found form in a new word that was added to the military vernacular. It
"retaliation." And, Its strategic purpose was to imply the
validity of the existence of 'offensive' weapons to achieve 'defensive' goals
in order to calm fears.
However, this premise is structurally invalid, because there is no implication of
containment of anything in its meaning. Consistent with that,
the weapon systems involved exceed the capability of mankind to survive
their use. And, without human survival, the concept of
'defense' is obviously meaningless.
So, how then are we to understand the use of 'retaliation' as it relates
to the idea of 'defense?' Logically, we can't.
'Retaliation' is NOT an acceptable alternative for 'defense' -- nor can
Unable to stem growing concern over the obvious, an attempt to solve this
contradiction resulted in the linking of the idea of 'retaliation' with
that of "deterrence." To deter, means to discourage through fear. And, it is this marriage of idea -- resulting from
clearly demonstrates, for the 1st time in human history, the
denial of logic (by itself) as a necessary component for the
justification of progressing its
unbridled expansion by way of us.
It should be clear to
everyone, that to discourage by means of fear is NOT an
acceptable determiner for a scientific process that claims to
rely upon rational quantitative
thought to determine the specific nature of its result. Instead,
its presence in this chain of reasoning suggests something far more
climatic. It proves that neither science nor
the method by which it achieves its result (the linear/quantitative
thought process) can ensure the continued survival of mankind if FEAR
cannot contain the human factor.
Proof of the finality of our situation lies in the fact that
'retaliation' is already programmed into the computer systems of most
nuclear capable countries. This program concretizes an approximation of
the minimum amount of quantifiable data required to engage the
retaliatory capability. This threshold obviously varies from country to
country depending upon computer system capability. This mindless intervention by machines
has become necessary, because mind realizes that it can no longer
function in the reduced 'time' interval allotted to it for decision making
with regard to nuclear war.
It is ironic that the final decisions regarding world survival rest with
the machines of our contrivance by default -- since, they alone possess
the ability to implement retaliation in the ever shrinking parameters of
'time' to which they so heavily contribute. So, where does all
this leave us?
Today, an act that requires only a fool to begin can set into motion the
most complex technology on earth to complete. Once begun, it
cannot be reversed, because the 'time' necessary to achieve reversal no
longer exists in the cycle. Mind simply cannot function quickly
enough to intervene.
And, the machines that lie at the heart of it
all, have no stake in human survival; but instead, mindlessly
function relative to whatever equation initiates their intervention.
Yet, in spite of the obvious, the alteration and misuse of language
by idiots continues, concealing this threat and preventing its
containment through the introduction of new ideas into the human psyche that are
-- or, ideas that have NO temporal constraints
inherent in the difference by which they are known.
Adding to the threat of inadequate time, a new and equally insidious approach to dealing with human
insecurity has arisen. And again, its value is disguised in yet
another abortion of language. This latest misnomer is called
"preemption." And, it too seeks to justify 'offensive' action in the
name of 'defense.' But, as with its less sophisticated sibling, there
is no inherent temporal constraint evident in its difference either. In
other words, the extent of 'preemption' rests solely upon capability,
willingness, and the degree of fear that prompts its use to achieve
perceived advantage. Hence, there is no inherent rationale that governs
the containment of its use. Of course, like all such abortions, its
justification is championed by the opportunist lacking foresight. And in this
instance, it is being done by amplifying "fear," driven by the possibility of threat from those
correctly or incorrectly classified as being
irrational. The problem here is that 'preemption' cannot help but "up the
ante" of instability in the world, thus bringing the importance of weapons of mass destruction
(and the threat of their use) once more to the fore, as the only
means to achieve protection from the high tech invasion of their sovereign space -- short of total
capitulation to the aggressor -- which is hardly a reasonable option.
If all this
insanity were not enough, another machination of progressed thought has
its way into the human equation. It takes the form of "genetically
altered" organisms. In this case, just like in the last, 'time' is
again the enemy when trying to neutralize this threat. But unlike
the 4 minute threshold that haunts the nuclear scenario, the threat here
is due to the insurmountable obstacles that the complexity of these
organisms pose -- making 'time' a non sequitur.
In other words, a cure simply cannot be found in the period it would
take for these organisms to wipe out the human race. A far lesser
example of this problem can be seen with the HIV virus which was first
identified in 1983 and is still without a cure some 30 years later.
Thankfully, it works slower and is spread by human activity that is
somewhat containable. However, airborne versions of the bird flu
virus (H1N1) and similar organisms in development, suffer no such hindrance,
causing their kill rate to approach 100%.
The greater fear with these organisms -- and it is
one that is totally justifiable -- is that one or
more of them will find their way into the hands of
small groups with the propensity for suicidal behavior. Groups
that have been alienated by political, economic, military or religious
difference. If that
happens, all the military might in the World will be rendered
So, it is to no one's advantage to continue
to promote instability through aggression while misusing language as a
means to cover up existing liability. Instead, it is far more important that language be
brought back under control and that the abortions that conceal the
threat of irrationality be exposed for what they are, before it is too late.
Above and beyond personal opinion, there is an
unwritten law regarding human survival which says; all ideas that do not respect the
"temporal constraints" of humankind serve only to destroy what they can
never become relevant to, regardless of how deception tries to
characterize them. And those that think they can manipulate
this fundamental axiom for personal gain need to be stopped, before they
cause humankind to be sacrificed in the balance.