I am surprised you could do a post like this Joe, and not mention the Three Conjectures.

I do think that you are incorrect about the importance of this election. You give it just a bit too much credit. I think '08 will be more important in the long run, but then again I think that Iran's quest for the bomb is not going as well for them as some on the right fear.

I should also point out that the markets aren't worried... yet.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061106/D8L7RILO0.html

How the markets close on Tuesday, and open Wednesday, will say a lot.

See the link to "Golden Hour", above, which is exactly that. But I'll make it more obvious.

And I personally don't give a damn if the markets yawn tomorrow. The indicators are there, clear as day, and bringing the future in their train.

Either derail that train, or prepare for that future.

The answer to this and every other problem can't be to talk as though "America must try harder!" (And everyone else can take a free ride.) Practically everyone is balancing against America now that the Soviet Union has fallen over, and the Americans are strong but not all-powerful. The Americans can be stopped, and diplomatically they are being stopped.

People seem to be taking this game to the point of global lunacy and beyond.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin is not a global philanthropist, fine, but this profits Russia ... how? I understand Putin needs money to secure his reign while he tries, in essence, to buy more Russians. I agree with that. But this is beyond being a bad way to make money for Russia, this is crazy.

The People's Republic of China has, in general, a foreign policy of the purest cynical self-interest. I approve - certainly compared to the foreign policy of, say, the Islamic Republic of Iran, which seems to put harm to the Great Satan above the Iranian national interest. But just because of that, one has to ask: is nuclear power in the hands of lunatic barbarians really a good long term bet for China? Why?

The European Union only exists because of American security guarantees. Not only have core EU states put all possible strain on American goodwill, but this makes it impossible for the Americans to act decisively in their defense in many circumstances, even if the Americans were inclined to do so. You can talk all you want about the "unipolarity" and the "multipolarity" but this is still balmy.

This is not a zero sum game. Worse for America is not better for everyone else.

Unfortunately, according to antisemitism, which the umma is promoting globally with great success, worse for Israel really is better for everyone else.

If that's the explanation, it doesn't seem very different from restating the original problem: these guys, being most of the world's important players, are acting crazy.

And time is about up, if anyone wants to start acting more prudently.

The answer to this and every other problem can't be to talk as though "America must try harder!"

Perhaps the Times story should be circulated in Europe with a handy map to remind people where these countries are. 3-4 of the countries border the Mediteranian -- I kind of find that dispersion to be surprising. Europe can always obtain its security guarantees from North Africa; Kharaj to be negotiated.

Its hard for me to imagine Algeria and Egypt keeping their act together long enough to develop nukes. Morocco is probably deterrable. That leaves the Sauds. I could easily see the Kingdom toppled while the nuke program continued unabated as a gift to the new caliph.

Just to keep the pot stirred, allow me to quote what I consider the crux of Lee Harris's World-Historical Gamble piece:

The procedure would be simplicity itself. Such a state figures out a covert method by which it detonates a nuclear device, and then simply fails to claim the act as its policy. For why, after all, may not a state act covertly, without declaring an attack to be official policy? After all, isn't this covered by the right to self-determination? Who are we to tell another country what kind of covert policy it may operate on the side?

Before 9/11 the first question that an intelligent person would think upon hearing such a scenario is why on earth would anyone want to do such a thing. But it is no longer our first question. Our first question is who will do it first? And that is the difference 9/11 made.

Yep. To paraphrase Heinlein, there is no satisfactory solution.

Or, to borrow from Shakespeare: Oh brave new world / that hath such weapons in't.

Note that both CBS's Jericho and NBC's Heroes deal with nuke attacks on the US; people have feared this loss of control in the Cold War mode since 1991.

We need clearly to demonstrate:

1. We can rock and roll at the drop of a hat, to quote Al Pacino in Heat. Deterrence only works if people are convinced you'll use it. I would suggest a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan and Iran, just to show yes we will.

[Yes it will cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Better than 100 million]

2. Increase nuclear missiles in all measures of the triad, weaponize space, and ratchet up missile defense spending.

3. Announce that any attack on the US will automatically result in the eradication of suspect countries. Only if #1 is done, will people actually believe it.

In short the situation is desperate but not hopeless, things can still be done, but the fantasy that we won't have to use nuclear weapons is gone. I write this with a heavy heart, I take only horror at the butcher's bill that will come, but I'd rather have minimal killing than the third conjecture.

Jim: Rock 'n rolling at the drop of a hat includes taking (being able to take) some licks. There's only one way we (the "Homeland" -- eesh.) are going to be able to demonstrate that.

Not wishing it, just saying. I think Robert Anton Wilson quoted Raymond Chandler as saying that courage is a thing you can never be entirely sure you have, and never be entirely sure you have lost.

Stay awake -- and spell one another -- seems the best we can do. That and build resilience, webs of trust, and a detachment from "our stuff".

Some of us will pull through.

That or build a bomb shelter. Again.

I agree with the sentiment, except that it doesn't go far enough. The number will be more like a billion.

Some Islamic terrorist nutcase is going to get hold of a nuke, or some other sort of serious WMD, and they will use it, and the civilised world will lose a city.

And they will lose all of theirs.

By the way, it looks as if Malaysia is going to be the next domino.

So, all kinds of American election races are going on... and here's my prediction. About 20 years from now, the vast majority of you won't even think of these elections as a footnote in history.

We'll think of them as the elections when President Santorum gave speeches as prescient as Churchill's and as ignored.

Do not know if this is THE election, but it surely is a flagstone on the path.

What I do know is that no one anywhere will do anything until it is too late. And when it is too late it will be TOO LATE.

Even one western city for all of theres will be sufficient to end the cloud coo coo land world that we live in and that most people seem to think will go on forever if they only bury their heads deep enough in the sand.

I often wonder what Winston Churchill would say if he could see the world now. I have this mental image of the Great Man's lips moving and no words coming out.

Alas, Babylon.

The reason this election will be a footnote is because it is a footnote. The tides that are running in the West are deep and wide- no one election is going to really matter much.

For goodness sake, Europe cant even bring themselves to stay silent regarding the execution of Saddam Hussein. Much less endorse it. A half dozen Arab nations decide they want in the nuke club too? Hardly a bat of an eyelash. We are decadent, we are stupid, we are lazy, and we are self-entitled. I dont see anything changing anytime soon in that regard.

The idea of even talking about MAD or some varient of it is ludicrious- simply put the West in this day and age isnt going to endorse the mass murder of entire populations, even as a threat of reprisal against same.

In a word, we're a bunch of p*&%$@#, and there is nothing history hates more.

Alarmist, much? And on election day, no less.

Jonathan is right. My wife and I moved away from WashDC this summer; among our friends still there, the joke is about dirty bombs -- if one-fourth of the town became radioactive, would prime lots in the other three-fourths be worth more, or less? We've moved to a smallish town in the South, and we're pricing construction costs for a shelter, just in case the Democrats win big today...

Nortius -- the Islamist line is that the West is too decadent and will never respond. The only way to prevent a city from being nuked is insure that no one can make that mistake.

"Take a lick?" What happens when say Dallas or Miami or LA or Philadelphia vanish?

I would submit the following:

Immediate burning out of all Mosques, and street violence that results in a lot of Muslims dead by angry and afraid (of another attack) vigilantes. People will do ANYTHING to protect their children from imminent death.

Summary rounding up and deportation of all Muslims by martial authorities (read your Civil War and WWII history, of course it will happen with 3 million plus American civilians dead and a vanished city).

Ending of all world trade by every nation fearful of a container nuke. Worldwide recesssion as a result.

Nuking on a strategic level of any nation that might even be suspected of being involved. Death tolls in the 200-300 million range.

Because unless you make the pain so massive and horrible it will happen again. Everyone will grasp that and DEMAND the strategic level nuking of Pakistan, Iran, and whatever other Muslim nuclear power exists.

Sound alarmist, awful, violent. Yes. It is however very likely. Great Britain at 1940 refused to bomb the Black Forest factories because they were "private property." A few years later they were firebombing Hamburg.

Taking a lick is too late. It means by definition the only way to forestall more attacks is essentially ending several nations. I have no desire to see the People of Pakistan OR Washington DC cease to exist and would therefore support pretty much anything even death tolls in the hundreds of thousands to forestall such an eventuality.

We and the other people who would die cannot afford to "take a lick."

I agree unfortunately. I think it will be about 2-3 million Americans, 20-30 Million Europeans and 100 Million Muslims dead by 2020.

That being said, Americans who live anywhere except the prime part of the 5-6 target cities (NY, SF, LA, DC, Chicago) will probably not die. The 2-3 million Americans will be confined to those who live in these cities..

It's hard to say what the Russians and Chinese are thinking. I'll start with Russia.

Russia is hard to understand, and they've made more than a few really stupid moves on the foreign policy front over the last little while (Ukraine comes to mind), along with some smart ones (Algeria, putting Europe in a Russian-controlled vise for natural gas).

Put it this way, though... assume a worst-case scenario of about 200 nuclear weapons going off throughout the Arab/Islamic Missle East. Fallout patterns et. al. put a temporary crimp in production of months to a couple years. Cause and senders unimportant for our purposes, we'll just stipulate that Russia didn't drop any of the bombs. Now, run the thought-experiment and look at the consequences for Russia...

• The value of Russia's oil becomes huge. Immediate economic windfall.
• Circumstances drive oil companies back in there after Putin ripped them all off to give their initial investments to his cronies. Aid from other countries helps Russia expand its big pipeline/shipment bottleneck in double-time.
• The Chechens? Their main source of support and finances doesn't exist any more. And if Russia wants to wipe them all out and use its resource cooperation as a club to silence critics, it can and will.
• China is badly affected, and its industrial economy falters or outright sputters and dies. At the very least, its rise as a global power is badly set back. It may well descend in chaos, removing Russia's main eastern strategic threat to Siberia.
• Europe is even more dependent on Russian natural gas and goodwill now, and will sign just about any deal to get that.
• Dead Arabs and dead Jews in quantity are a plus to them, not a minus.
• Fallout in Russia itself is not significant enough for Putin or his oligarchy to care.

Look at the plusses and minuses for Russia under a worst-case scenario, and do so in a hard-nosed way - and ask yourself if that scenario is something that scares them. Especially since playing the lead-up game gets Russia its publicly-desired "multi-polar" world in which it doesn't have to take US and European requests for anything seriously.

Their main "we lose" scenario involves a non worst case scenario in which the Chechens get a nuclear-armed country as a patron, and become a much, much bigger problem that chokes Russia's fragile oil/gas distribution system to the economic benefit of some Middle Eastern patron. Russia may feel confident of their ability to handle that scenario through various means, from simple genocide of the Chechens to assassinations and other methods they can employ at will and without scrutiny.

If so, we have a situation where Russia/Putin sees a large upside (multi-polarity) and manageable downsides. That means "green light," unless there are major downsides this analysis has left out which would tip that balance.

But it doesn't seem so. Which may well explain Russia's behaviour with Iran, their little-discussed role providing radio intercept intel to Hezbollah during the recent war with Israel, et. al.

I expect that the Saudis will end up going to the Russians for their reactors, if not the French. The Algerians almost certainly will go to the Russians. Egypt would find a Russian reactor a useful prod that will make America's "realists" argue that not interfering with Egypt's atomic quest is required in order to stop them from flipping back into Russia's orbit. Just ring the bell, Fayed, and watch Kissinger and his dogs drool on cue.... Meanwhile, big profits and expansion of international influence for Russia.

If anyone else has a better guesstimation scenario that explains Putin's game and fits Russia's behaviour, I'm all ears....

Time to take a crack at China's game...

Note the coming Congressional report re: China and North Korea, via the U.S.-China Economic Security Review Commission which charts a pattern of Chinese assistance to that country increasing and specifically alleges nuclear weapons cooperation.

For whatever reason, the Chinese have been the world's #1 proliferator re: atomic weapons technology for the past 20 years (hello, Pakistan), and seem to think it's a good way of hurting their enemies. You'd have to ask them about their calculus there, and hope for a straight answer. Good luck.

The most probable answer is that they believe someone else (i.e. the USA et. al.) will take the hit from proliferation blowback, weakening a rival (good), and then either the weakening will go one for a while (very good) or any mess will get cleaned up without them while they've profited on both ends (excellent).

This may be somewhat optimistic on their part, given the potential scope of retaliation - but then, if you have enough nuclear Muslim powers, that tends to limit the scope of retaliation in ways that avoid too-extensive oil supply disruptions.

As a back-up, I suppose they're confident that if necessary they could (a) absorb any losses given that their subjects' lives are cheap; and (b) take steps to ensure that there wouldn't even be a memory of any suspected perpatrators or enablers a century later. Because (b) is credible in their case, someone else being the victim becomes that much more likely.

I think that even if all this is true, the 20-30 year biowarfare countdown and their country's massive vulnerability to biological attack makes their calculus problematic - especially if it's used to shelter the kinds of folks likely to perpetrate that sort of thing once they're given a chance. But that's just me.

There's lots that's unclear within China - it is, after all, a closed society, and decision-making in dictatorhips is not rational it's factional.

One thing we can say for sure is that non-proliferation is most definitely absent from China's foreign policy playbook. Can anything get it inserted? Hard to say, but the dynamics of dictatorships make that unlikely unless the architects of the last 20 years of Chinese proliferation policy die or are removed from positions of authority (often the same thing). That isn't impossible, but it sure won't happen casually.

Meanwhile, the clock ticks on toward midnight in the West. Evolution is a bitch.

Quoth Jim Rockford:

We and the other people who would die cannot afford to "take a lick."

I hear you.

You seem to be mixing advocacy with capability. I am trying to distinguish the two. I don't see the parties involved taking the steps you describe. Given my view, saying that the West/humanity "can't afford" the outcome is indistinguishable to me from saying "any alternative is tolerable".

I doubt you mean that. But "can't afford" is an expression that has also been used as a rationale for appeasement. I deprecate the expression for that reason.

People who "can't afford" to save money are easy prey. People who "can't afford" to take care of their health die early. People who "can't take a lick"... Well, there they go.

I am not advocating that outcome. I am advocating being able to survive such without letting the flame go out.

I believe that you share that desire, in addition to having (as I do) the desire that nuclear / world war not come to pass.

Saying "we can't afford" too easily translates to appeasement or despair -- not in you, but in people who interpret your words that way. Saying "the cost is too great" sounds different to me, but not much. I think a calculus of horror is tricky business, and I'd rather not have us do the computation with real results. But treating the "worst" situation space as incalculably bad, or off limits, is sheer brittle amphigory. I assume you've read some edition of Herman Kahn's Thinking About the Unthinkable ?

I think a sheaf of attitudes is called for. You keep talking your way, I'll keep talking mine.

Peace, out.

--Nort

Sorry, on reflection I think I might have been talking to one side of Jim rather than square-on.

So I'll boil it down:

I am not saying we should let them hit us first.

I am saying that the belief "if they hit us ever, all of Western Civilization crumbles" is neither correct nor useful.

I am saying I fear the rhetorical device of "can't afford" plays into the hands of those who wish-feel-think that the crumble is a foregone conclusion.

I am saying that if enough people think that's so, it will be more likely to be "proven" "correct".

There's a scene in Heinlein's Starship Troopers where Zim and his superior officer talk about what happens when you let a recruit lay a glove on you. That's, in part, the sentiment (writ very large, with overkill consequences) you express.

I get you, Jim.

AND we need to be able to handle it if it happens.

That's all. Sorry for all the wordy indirection.

The proliferation of atomic weapons in the mid-east is more likely a result of the fact there has never been an internal reformation w/in the Islamic religion. While many authors here have pointed out negative issues that cover both sects of Islam, without some sort of live and let live strategy among its own adherents and an admission of the failure of Arab states to provide for their own people they have no other place to go except for hatred of the "Great Satan" or the other sect. I do not see the nuke weapon issue coming here because of this unresolved schism.

The US can clearly give a public warning about being held responsible w/out large expenditures on a space shield as the other player likely to be threatened by it is the PRC. The PRC now finds itself like the young lady from Niger staring at the tiger's teeth(North Korea) with no one to blame but themselves. If they value the continuation of the men of the Han, they have no choice but to find common cause w/ us to help prevent the proliferation.

The Russians on the other hand keep playing ellipitical and irresponsible games w/ Europe over energy(nice heads up about the alliance w/ Algeria). One might have thought they'd see something of the problem if they looked at the eastern end of the empire but like Bush looking into Putin's soul they come up w/ nothing but Rasputin. Europe's response is likely to become that of France's and build more nuclear power plants with the resultant by product being used for nuclear weapons thus underpinning their own security.

So yes the chances of atomic weapon warfare are likely but not likely on our soil. The consquences of it are something we will have to deal w/ but like the hurricanes that hit the Gulf coast not to long ago we really will not know what to do until it happens.

So much for a campaign of democratization in the Muslim World, since neither American nor Arab voters support it now. The view that the staying power for such projects does not exist has proved to be right. Future American presidents will know that it's possible to start a project of this kind but not to finish it.

I still think this election result is unfortunate.
(1) I am pro-war but not a single issue guy. I think pro-life issues and demographics are independently important (both practically and morally) and as basic as anything in this war. Wiping out our future generations means defeat.
(2) None of the active alternatives that Diana West, Hugh Fitzgerald, Michelle Malkin and others (including myself) might want to see pursued in place of a static "stay the course" policy in Iraq will be supported by a Democratic legislature.

-

#13 from Mark Buehner: "The reason this election will be a footnote is because it is a footnote. The tides that are running in the West are deep and wide- no one election is going to really matter much."

I think the 2000 and 2004 American Presidential elections were important.

The 2006 legislative elections matter - and a hearty bravo to Democrats for their great result! Due to the McCain-Feingold incumbency protection act, prospects to consolidate Democratic gains are good.

But yes, this war is going to go a while. Deep currents of demographics and cultural change are sweeping us along. This election is not decisive for the Jihad Wars.

#13 from Mark Buehner: "For goodness sake, Europe cant even bring themselves to stay silent regarding the execution of Saddam Hussein. Much less endorse it. A half dozen Arab nations decide they want in the nuke club too? Hardly a bat of an eyelash. We are decadent, we are stupid, we are lazy, and we are self-entitled. I dont see anything changing anytime soon in that regard."

My view is harsher but basically similar.

#13 from Mark Buehner: "The idea of even talking about MAD or some varient of it is ludicrious- simply put the West in this day and age isnt going to endorse the mass murder of entire populations, even as a threat of reprisal against same.

In a word, we're a bunch of p*&%$@#, and there is nothing history hates more."

There's something else history hates too, and that's a "mad dog". Those can come a cropper, though unlike the overly passive, the overly savage have a chance to get lucky by finding a spiritless enemy. The Muslim World qualifies as a "mad dog" culture in this sense: it's set to prosper only with the aid of sterile, decadent, demoralized enemies and victims.

I look on it kind of like Bud, from the Kill Bill movies. For what we're doing to our own flesh and blood, and for our spinelessness in upholding our traditions and civilization in the face of appalling enemies, we deserve to die. But then again, so do they. For their evil, and their irrationality and their parasitism, they've got it coming, big time. So we should do our best without bothering about rights and wrongs any more, and we'll see how this bloody affair turns out.

Civilizations do not learn by reasoned argument. They believe what they want to believe and disregard the rest. They change their minds through slow evolution or rapid trauma. War counts as the latter.

Consider the fact that there is not one single argument against nationalism (or nazism) known today that was not well-know in 1890. Such arguments were dismissed without thought by all but a few crazies in 1890, yet they are accepted without thought by all but a few crazies in 2006.

What happened? Mass trauma. Horrible to say, but reason had nothing to do with getting the Europeans into their current state of mind (and equally, no amount of reason will change them, America, China, or the Muslims).

WWI and WWII demonstrated that dying for one's country was a recipe for civilzational suicide. Not logically, but in terms of years of hunger, hundreds of smashed cities, and bitter public humiliation and occupation. (None of this 'decapitate the C2 structure' foolishness.) That is, mass trauma.

Today there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who think that 'dulce et decorum est pro Allah mori' (apologies to Wilfred Owen). (And, BTW 1/4 of the world is intensely nationalistic Chinese in a rising superpower who think the Middle Kingdom should take back its rightful place of dominating the barbarians in Europe, India, Africa, America...)

What will it take to change the mind of that civilization so that they think jihad is a recipe not for glory but for civilizational suicide? Take the combined toll of WW1 and WW2, multiply the increase in world population since then, and you get an idea.

And don't doubt that the Europeans saw WWI as a holy war. They knowingly sacrificed themselves in waves against the machine guns, thinking it was like Christ's sacrifice of himself on the cross. They don't admit it now, but that's how they saw it then:

"I wish those people who write so glibly about this being a holy war and the orators who talk so much about going on no matter how long the war lasts and what it may mean, could see a case--to say nothing of ten cases--of mustard gas in its early stages ..." - John Ellis, Eye-Deep in Hell.

World population was about 2B in 1927 (about the mid-point of the 14-45 period); it is 6.5B now and projected to be 7 or 8 billion by 2020. WWI caused the deaths of some 12M, WWI caused around 60M, or 72M total.

Multiply by (6.5/2.0) and you get around 234M.

Two hundred and thirty four million dead people.

It's a horrifying number, but historically it would be on the par with what it takes to traumatize a civilization into changing its mind. Remember, you did not have European leaders in 1910 being cheered in the streets for crying "We love Death!", as you do now in Lebanon, Iran, etc. You did not see anywhere the kind of bloody pyschopathic billboards Hezbollah has erected all over south Lebanon. So, frankly, I think I'm being optimistic by thinking that their minds will be changed by the same percent casualties that it took to change European minds - in spite of their far greater bloody-mindedness.

I think the 100M figure is too low. I'd guess 200M to 250M -- assuming things don't get totally out of control (e.g. nuclear winter or smallpox). That would be Really Bad.

So much for a campaign of democratization in the Muslim World, since neither American nor Arab voters support it now.

I doubt a majority of Americans ever supported democratization. Bush supported democratization. I bet a majority of the Republican party supported invading Iraq, hanging Saddam, conducting provisional elections or appointing a general to take Saddam's place and getting out.

No construction of electricity, roads or water systems. No constitutional process to promote women's equality or a unity government. No training of Iraqi military, police and judges. No fire stations in Baghdad.

They were quiet for Bush; it will be interesting to see if they are enlivened to disagree publicly or feel even more indebted to Bush's veto pen.

And don't doubt that the Europeans saw WWI as a holy war. They knowingly sacrificed themselves in waves against the machine guns, thinking it was like Christ's sacrifice of himself on the cross

I think this is entirely wrong. Aside from the theological problems of one Christian going through a barbed-wire filled hell to stab another christian over the right to lie in a few yards of mud- the bigger question is what brings human beings to make the most irrational decision imageinable by stepping into the killing field of a machine gun.

I think its pretty well documented that people do it because society expects them to- not for loot (not in this day and age) and really not for idealogy either. Idealogy might get a soldiers name on the dotted line, but when the bullets are wizzing by and the dead are falling all around it is fear of shame that overcomes self-preservation.

The societies that manage to instill the deepest sense of honor and obligation in their citizens produce the soldiers that will line up in the face of almost certain death. They would rather die than be seen as a coward by their fellows, and that keeps away the natural urge to bolt when rational thought is out the window.

The old adage that there are no atheists in foxholes is probably wrong- James Jones (author of From Here to Eternity, Thin Red Line, veteran of Guadalcanal) wrote that there were more every day in a warzone.

To get back to the point, we need to keep in mind that our current enemy exists in the same reality. It is his society that pushes the suicide bomber and allows him to do what he does. If there were shame attached to terrorism instead of pride, it would be the territory of lone nuts and sociopaths instead of a weapon of war. In that sense, we truly are at war with the Muslim culture, and not just a few nuts.

Perhaps we should just ask the Romans what it all means.

And don't doubt that the Europeans saw WWI as a holy war. They knowingly sacrificed themselves in waves against the machine guns, thinking it was like Christ's sacrifice of himself on the cross.

The doubters likely get their war history from sources other than English lit. poetry.

Probably should let this go . . .

Religion can be blamed for a lot, but it can't be blamed for the blasphemous assertion that whole armies were hypnotized into believing they were doing Christ's work. There is little surviving first-hand evidence from the fox holes that organized religion was broadly influential. Any decent WWI history book will show that it was faith in the nation that was the chief source of morale. Soldiers refused to fight for the Czar and the Habsburgs because they had little faith in their Empires, not due to a lack of religious conditioning. The French fought for France, not G*d, and some of the odd morale problems suffered by them was due to front line soldiers wanting a voice in the tactical decisions made by commanders, not a desire to desert.

Will the French fight for France today? Or for Europe? Have the bloodstained years taught that war should always be the last resort? Is it better to go quietly and be remembered fondly?

Buehner, Shaw et al,

Yes, in my zeal, I overstated the point. I'm too used to arguing with Europeans, who take an extremely narrow and PC view of what happened during the 14-45 period. Plain old unit cohesion played the role you outlined above, so religion could not possibly have been the sole motivation. I did not mean to give the impression of dumping on Christianity; I just raised a subsidiary point (the complexity of motivation) that distracted from the main point.

The main point remains: civilizations change their beliefs by irrational processes. Whether the belief which was abandoned was religious, marxist, racist, nationalistic, or socialistic is a quite secondary point.

The point is that a war of culture-transforming scale would be terribly bloody. Simple extrapolation from the last culture-transforming war (14-45) indicates approximately 200-250M casualties. The First World War was horribly traumatic, of course, but the Second still happened.

Indeed, as support for this thesis, one could argue that part of the reason for Islam's growth and success over the centuries is precisely that they understand that they do not need to persuade or reason in order to win converts. Civilizations change their beliefs by irrational processes: violent conversion by the sword works. I'm not saying that that is a good thing; I'm saying that that is what has been historically observed. Pope Benedict has an excellent theological point about the incompatability of force and the reason that goes with Christian faith -- but the unchristian history of this fallen world does not appear to correlate with his thesis.

Imposing sharia law and the pact of Umar would seem, to the rational and ethical mind, to be a way of turning people AGAINST islam - but it works the other way around. So many people react to oppression by joining the oppressor that the muslims had try to slow the rate of conversion by continuing to impose all the economic penalties on coverted muslims, and treating only their muslim children as full muslims. As long as there are dhimmi to exploit, raid, etc. the muslims do well. When they run out of dhimmi, or the dhimmi acquire enough technology to stop them (as happened at the gates of Vienna on 9/11 1683), the economic situation deteriorates.

Aside from the Pope's points, Tthe PC line is that people react to oppression with resistance, but the history of Islam shows that this just ain't so. Sometimes they resist, but often they join in and become oppressors, too. The mere fact of oppression does not indicate which will happen. Oppression with the hope of escape produces resistance; oppression with no hope of escape save conversion produces conversions.

That's why it's the "religion of peace" and the "religion of dominance": you'll get no peace at all until you convert (even dhimmis are harassed constantly - why do you think all the zoroastrians fled to India or to Yazd?), and then you will be one of the dominators and not one of the dominated.

I live to argue the secondary and tertiary points . . ., but I understand what you are saying.

As to the primary point, capitalism may compete with wars as an exteremely powerful tool in transforming a culture.

#27 from michael: "Perhaps we should just ask the Romans what it all means."

My stab at a Roman's advice to Europe...

-

Aggressive and dishonorable men from North Africa (and parts East) are occupying parts of Spain and moving in to Italy again. Their motivation this time is their hyper-hostile Semitic religion (again), which makes them sacrifice their children and even themselves for victory in battle (again). You won't talk your way out of this, and you shouldn't try. This is war to the knife, to the very end, and if it takes decades and war on war on war to win, do it.

In this fight, take heart from your strong households teeming with many children, and your tribes that bind households in webs of wider obligation, and your mighty state, blessed by the gods and infinitely pragmatic and ruthless in war.

Or, since you have none of the above, try to fight as though you had children whose future your cared about - and really have some – in fact it needs to be a lot, and soon - since we would never have been victorious without our superior and more fertile families.

Build community ties - stop living for private entertainments as though you did not know each other. Get it into your heads that tribalism is not just for barbarians: moderate tribalism is a good thing, as long as all the tribes are of the same basic character. (And domestic, not foreign.)

Rebuild the Altar of Victory, and ... I'll spare myself the rest of my religious advice, because it's obvious you won't take it.

Don't negotiate. Refuse all offers, however "reasonable". You need to be unquestioned masters of all your own lands again. And the enemy must be beaten utterly. Kidding yourself you can let hostile settlers establish themselves in your lands and that there will be no consequences is like kidding yourself a lion in your garden will never get hungry.

Study what your enemies do, and do it back to them, better. If you can't do it better, just do it with greater industrial production and more men.

Don't be swayed by how you like to do things, especially how you like to fight. The Roman way is to accept the challenge of winning in ways that do not come naturally to you. We made ourselves masters of the Mediterranean, natural sailors or not. You must master wars of demography and terror, whether you like them or not. If you don't do this, you will lose, as so many barbarian tribes who kept doing what they were familiar with and liked to do lost to us. Displays of superiority in a high-tech, bloodless style of war that doesn't get the job done are about as useful as barbaric displays of bare-chested superior courage against arrows.

For pity's sake - pity for your own unfortunately imaginary children and their futures if you are weak - be ruthless. Make it unsafe to betray you. Look always to us for examples. We were good at this.

Get used to the idea of losing cities, and to fighting on regardless and making ashes of your enemy's cities. Once it happened by the hands of men, and now that the nuclear weapons are in demand by your wealthy enemies it's going to happen by bombs. You need to be more committed to victory than your jihadist enemies.

Alliance-building was a passion for us. You too need to build alliances. Here's a hint: any people that use Latin letters and have public offices such as "senators" are a good place to start. But don't neglect the enemies of your enemies, in Africa and everywhere.

Build your own legions. Do not imagine that you can infuriate and disappoint the great republic over the water endlessly while living off security guarantees that are only meaningful in a context that your own conduct continually renders meaningless. Do not assume that if you start to fight as ruthlessly as you will need to for your own survival, your former allies will not try to impose crippling restrictions on you. If they impose them on their own armies, why would they be less censorious to you - especially after you have been ludicrously censorious to them?

Build monuments to us, in place of demolished mosques, and honor us. We deserve it, and reverence for ones ancestors is a good thing.

-

A Roman father from his grave might be kind enough to give such advice to a distant descendant.

He'd also be wise enough to know it can never be acted on.

That's why Dark Ages happen, more or less.

Advice from the same ghost to an American descendant:

I. Large families.
II. Modest, achievable military goals, piling success on success - not wild crusades for infinite justice.
III. Fight to win, not to benefit your enemies. Study how we did this. We had it right. You don't.
IV. Get used to fighting alone, because tragically you will largely be alone. Gods it breaks my heart to say this, but there's no future for those that won't breed. (Read Mark Steyn for the details.)
V. Maintain your republican institutions. You're doing this better than we did. Stick to it.
VI. You can do it.

Turn off the television. Get out and meet your fellow citizens: learn to trust them and be trusted by them, it is the foundation stone of cooperation in every enterprise. NASCAR is great. Steel chariot races - what a concept!

Long ago, even America had some people in power with understanding of our Roman friend's advice.

"I know that in Washington I am incomprehensible, because at the outset of the war I would not go it blind and rush headlong into a war unprepared and with an utter ignorance of its extent and purpose. I was then construed unsound; and now that I insist on war pure and simple, with no admixture of civil compromises, I am supposed vindictive. You remember what Polonius said to his son Laertes: "Beware of entrance to a quarrel; but, being in, bear it, that the opposed may beware of thee." What is true of the single man, is equally true of a nation. Our leaders seemed at first to thirst for the quarrel, willing, even anxious, to array against us all possible elements of opposition; and now, being in, they would hasten to quit long before the "opposed" has received that lesson which he needs. I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begs for mercy; indeed, I know, and you know, that the end would be reached quicker by such a course than by any seeming yielding on our part."

- General William Tecumsah Sherman, letter to General J. A. Rawlins, 17 September 1863

I take some comfort from the thought that idiots in DC were a problem back then. But only some.

That's an interesting quote laocoon, and I find myself much in the spirit of it. Slow to engage, but possibly irretrievably drawn to the same conclusion, total war is inevitable. The golden hour is slipping, but yet still to linger makes me feel productive and unafraid.

If the US were not attacking and threatening countries that never attacked them, those Arab countries weren't seeking nuclear weapons. And if the US and the other nuclear states were commited to the NPT by disarming and dismantling their nuclear weapons capacities, other countries weren't seeking nuclear weapons they feel are necessary to deter an american attack.
Shame on the US administration and the military-industrial complex, always seeking for enemies to keep the now useless huge military budget. The end of the cold war could have brought peace to the world if there were not the greed of the arm industry, and the complicity of the administration.

Christian:

If the US were not attacking and threatening countries that never attacked them, those Arab countries weren't seeking nuclear weapons.

I think the English language idiom you want is

"...those Arab countries would not be seeking nuclear weapons."

If that is what you mean: How do you know this? I know you believe this, but how do you know this with such certainty?

What is your evidence? Or is it just a belief?

I am sure it provides you with comfort to have such a simple model of the world. Pardon me for asking... How old are you? What's your native language?

And Christian, reading your text, it all seems to be about American threats and attacks.

This puzzles me. Just looking at some events in the post-1945 period, who was it that invaded the Baltic states, Poland, Korea, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968 (200k troops in country, another 2 million on the border)?

I don't remember it being the US. But perhaps our media lied about all that. After all, they're the corrupt tools of the military-industrial complex, right?

Has America always been the only serious enemy of the world, as far as you are concerned? If not, when did that happen? 1991? 2002? Help me out here.

I just want to know what I'm dealing with.

Christian,

You miss a very critical point. The Shah of Iran started the Iranian nuclear program. The Iranian program didn't start because of the US or Israel, as the Shah was an ally of America and of Israel. The Khomeini government shelved it because they considered nukes to be unislamic - but they revived it toward the end of the Iran/Iraq war because it looked like the only way to defeat a US-backed Iraq. Further, after we sank most of their navy, they saw it as the only way besides terrorism to inflict battlefield defeat on the US. As anything that helps propagate Islam is by definition islamic (i.e. "good and virtuous"), a fatwa was suddenly issued declaring that nukes were islamic - IF they were used in the interests of spreading Islam, i.e. killing or intimidating infidels.

South Africa developed nukes, and built a small arsenal (six) to deter their Soviet-backed neighbors. Again, Israel was their ally.

The West briefly gained ascendancy over the rest of the world, because the intellectual Scientific Revolution (and consequently the material Industrial Revolution) happened in Western Europe. Brutal imperialism was nothing new. Check the inscription which the Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II, 9th century BC, left on a pillar: "I built a pillar against his city gate and I flayed all the chiefs who had revolted, and I covered the pillar with their skin." The inscription goes on, but such public proclamation of brutality continues up to today, e.g. with Assad's destruction of Hama in 1982 that killed about 30K civilians in 1 week to discourage the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria.

What was world-alteringly new was for it to be backed by modern industrial power on one side and traditional hand-weapons on the other was new.

"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do." -- Samuel P. Huntington

However, the average IQ is 100 everywhere on earth, and so scientific knowledge diffuses. Weapons technology spreads, and the scientific/military supremacy of the West will end unless the Westerners continue to generate new science, and to translate it into new economic and military advantages, faster than non-Westerners can imitate it or generate their own. Considering the recent record of the Indians and Chinese, I have a suspicion that they'll do pretty well over the next century.

So, Christian, they are not getting nukes because of US policy. They are getting nukes for the same reason the Shah did, the South Africans did, and so on: because modern weapons are powerful, and those who avoid power will inevitably subjugated by those who seek power. It is as inevitable and ugly as evolution (of which it is a species). The particular cause cited this year or for this country are just symptoms of the underlying current of history. If those symptoms were changed (e.g. by considering the 1970's), you'd still see the current at work.

I was only considering post-cold war era...

Let's look at the rogues gallary of countries the U.S. plans to invade:

Egypt, we give them $2 billion in economic and military aid each year.

Morocco is consistently mentioned by the U.S. as an example of the type of moderate Arab state we would like to promote.

UAE, the country we would like to turn our ports over to.

Algeria? Christian must have the U.S. confused with France.

Saudi Arabia. The Sauds do have something to worry about, but as Michael Moore pointed out, its not from the Bush administration. The Sauds are protected from the U.S. by oil and by its Holy sites. Iran cannot be so deterred.

Re: #18 and #19 from Joe Katzman: I don't like those answers, because they don't seem to offer much hope, but I don't have better ones.

With China, you are right: "proliferates weapons" seems to be a persistent part of its diplomatic style. I think that as long as China continues to enjoy its peaceful rise to power unimpeded, it should want stability, not to say stagnation, for everyone else. But that is how I think and not, apparently, how the Chinese think.

Russia's diplomacy still looks badly wrong to me. But eccentric diplomacy is historically normal for Russia. You get a mix of brilliant moves, silly moves and sheer randomness. Diplomacy might just have to stop for a while as the Tsar was on vacation.

Re: #35 from laocoon: That was about as clearly said as anything could be.

William T. Sherman was one of Victor Davis Hansen's three examples in Culture and Carnage (2001) of what the West does right in war, with Victor Davis Hansen's point being that this is a continuous tradition.

The wisdom and strength of our ancestors is always ready to hand, if only we are wise enough to avail ourselves of it.

Fudge, that should have been Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise to Western Power, except that the book I really had in mind was The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny, and Victor Davis Hansen's other two examples in it were Epaminondas and George Patton. Sorry for the double goof.

Masculine Islam will be declared incompatable with civilized nations.

What will happen if the US Nukes Iran? The US will become the new "Axis of Evil".

Bush desperately wants to start a war with Iran as a last gasp effort to salvage something beyond ignominious defeat for his "Legacy". All of the scenarios spelled out in the War Games the Joint Chiefs did in the last five years have said that starting a war with Iran will inevitably lead to a nuclear first strike against Iran's Natanz and Esfahan facilities.

The War Games Scenario for the Iran War goes like this:
1. The US or Israel [with US cooperation] prepares to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities at Natanz and Esfahan. A few Generals and Admirals resign but the attack happens anyway. The attack causes major surface damage but does not penetrate through the layers of reinforced concrete and steel to the level of the Centrifuges and Uranium processing facilities. The attack is a failure but it starts a US/Israeli war with Iran.
2. Iran announces it is withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran attacks any oil tankers passing through the Straights of Hormuz and the US Aircraft Carriers and their escorts in the gulf using swarming speedboats, torpedoes and silkworm cruise missiles and sinks at least 1 carrier and several other ships causing 2000-3000 US casualties.
3. The US Air-force starts large scale bombing of Iran's infrastructure.
4. Iran's Revolutionary Guard invades southern Iraq with 300,000-400,000 ground troops and cuts off all supplies to US forces in southern and western Iraq.
5. The US bombs areas of southern Iraq where Iranian soldiers are blocking US supplies and the US bombing causes mass civilian casualties.
6. The Iraqi Government orders the US to leave Iraq immediately or be attacked by the Iraqi Army. The Iraqi Shiite and Sunni Mullahs issue a Fatwa directing all Insurgents and Militias to attack US soldiers and not each other.
7. US forces are besieged by 300,000 Iranians and 200,000 Iraqi Army, Insurgents and Militia soldiers. After 60 days of intense fighting and 10,000-20,000 US casualties, the US bases in Iraq run out of fuel, ammunition and food.
8. The US troops in southern Iraq, western Iraq and Bagdad are forced to "Retreat Under Fire" to the Kurdish north leaving behind all of their heavy equipment.
9. The Iranians seize the abandoned US weapons and bring in fuel and supplies and turn the weapons on the US.
10. The US claimes the excuse of "Protecting US Troops" and uses tactical nuclear bombs to attack the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Militia forces in southern Iraq and nuclear bunker buster bombs to destroy Natanz and Esfahan in Iran. There are 300,000 immediate civilian casualties caused by the blast and radiation and 750,000 cases of radiation poisoning in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Northern India.
11. All Oil production in Iraq and Iran stops for 6-9 months [25% of world oil production]. All Middle-East Oil shipments through the Straights of Hormuz are stopped [20% of world oil production]. All middle-eastern countries together impose a total Oil Embargo on supplies to the US and Israel. Venezuela, Bolivia and Argentina join in the Oil Embargo. Gasoline and Heating Fuel-oil prices rise to $10.00 per gallon, Natural Gas prices rise to $5.00 per CCF and gasoline rationing is imposed. Energy intensive industries shut down. Frequent major blackouts occur crippling the server farms that power the Internet. The US economy suffers a meltdown.
12. Iran abrogates the Non-Proliferation Treaty and reprocesses Plutonium from their research reactors to produce 1-2 nuclear bombs which are used to destroy Tel Aviv. Israel responds with their own nuclear bombs destroying Tehran.
13. A general war of all Islam vs. the US and Israel ensues. All US bases in the middle-east are attacked causing 50,000-75,000 US casualties before the US forces can escape. Israel is invaded from all sides by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories. The US and Israel are branded by the world as the "Axis of Evil".

Imagine a world where the US is reviled by every other nation for the unforgivable damage we have done to innocent civilians. Where the US is under a Permanent Oil Embargo by all OPEC member states. Where Canada, Mexico and South America join Europe and Asia to ban all trade with the US and evict all US Military bases from their soil. Where all US citizens with any connection to the Bush Administration are under indictment by The Hague and are put on a No-Fly List banning them from from travel outside the US. Where all US multi-national corporations are boycotted or banned by the rest of the world or are forced to split and change their names to avoid anti-US sentiment.

All this and more can happen if Bush decides to Nuke Iran.

Bush is the Decider. He makes the Decisions and the rest of us have to live with the consequences. Bush's Decisions about the Middle-East have been uniformly bad. Some of them have been worse than bad; they have crossed the line into the zone of Criminal Negligence and Suicidal Stupidity.

The worst Decision Bush has made in his two terms as President has been to insist that the use of Nuclear Bunker Buster bombs remain in the Pentagon's planning for dealing with Iran.

Iran may be telling the truth or Iran may be lying when they say that they are only trying to enrich Uranium for nuclear power. If Iran is telling the truth and their goal is just nuclear power, then using a Nuke against Iran will guarantee that Iran will go for The Bomb in self defense. If Iran is lying then using a Nuke against Iran will only delay Iran getting The Bomb by one or two years and will guarantee that they will attempt to use it against the US or Israel.

The US B61-11 Nuclear Bunker Buster bomb is only able to penetrate hard rock to a depth of 10-20 feet before it detonates. At 20ft penetration and maximum yield, the B61-11 can only destroy a facility that is buried less than 600ft below ground. Blast forces can be blocked by simple inexpensive materials like a 100ft thick layer of gravel or bags of sand or granulated salt. The limitations of the B61-11 have been known for years and any Iranian weapons facility will have been built with those limits in mind.

If Iran is actually trying to build a Nuclear Bomb, they will probably have done what Iraq and Pakistan did by building a secret second facility buried deep under ground under the publicly visible facilities at Natanz and Esfahan.

The Natanz facility in Iran is known to have a double roof of thick reinforced concrete with 50-75ft of gravel between the concrete layers. The roof is sufficient to protect against any non-nuclear bunker buster (even the US air forces MOAB bomb). Natanz could probably also survive a low yield Nuclear Bunker Buster bomb.

If the US actually used the B61-11 bomb in Iran against the Natanz or Esfahan facilities more than 500,000 civilian deaths could be expected in iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.