You are here

Home

Facing World War III as Nuclear Armageddon?


Time for a Remedial Global Nuclear War? (Part #7)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

There is already recognition of the previously "unimaginable" reality of World War III, with some arguing that it has already effectively begun -- with the confrmation withheld from the public:

The perverse logic of a "preemptive nuclear war" is reviewed  by Michel Chossudovsky (The Historic Battle for Peace and Democracy. a Third World War threatens the future of humanity. Global Research, 11 March 2023):

At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable. All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as “a weapon of last resort”, have been scrapped.

Vladimir Putin's statement on February 21st, 2022 was a response to US threats to use nuclear weapons on a preemptive basis against Russia, despite Joe Biden's “reassurance” that the US would not be resorting to “A first strike” nuclear attack against an enemy of America... 

Although the Ukraine conflict has so-far been limited to conventional weapons coupled with “economic warfare”, the use of a large array of sophisticated WMDs including nuclear weapons is on the drawing board of the Pentagon.

According to the Federation of American Scientists, the total number of nuclear warheads Worldwide is of the order of 13,000.  Russia and the United States “each have around 4,000 warheads in their military stockpiles”.

According to the Book of Revelation in the New Testament of the Christian Bible, Armageddon is the prophesied location of a gathering of armies for a battle during the "end times". Framed as "Nuclear Armageddon", there is increasing anticipation of both the possibility and the questionable ability to avoid it:

For some the possibility is welcomed as the fulfillment of prophecy -- and therefore presaging "the greatest event ever to occur in the universe" (Gerald Flurry, Nuclear Armageddon Is 'At the Door', Philadelphia Trumpet, October 2017). The possibility can be explored as the outcome of negligence -- of "global oversight" otherwise understood (Spontaneous Initiation of Armageddon -- a heartfelt response to systemic negligence, 2004). A speculative focus can be placed on the role of "evil" (Evil Rules Guidelines for Engaging in Armageddon Now, 2015).

"Facing the Spectre" versus "Facing What"? Use of "spectre" is frequently made in reference to the horrific prospect of nuclear warfare (Scott Simon, The Specter of Nuclear Armageddon, NPR, 15 October 2022). Curiously however, humanity has developed a considerable taste for dystopian movies (List of dystopian films, Wikipedia; Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, Wikipedia). terror paper??

This can perhaps be seen as an inherently dishonest manner of engaging with disastrous catastrophe -- an "arms length" appreciation thereof. Why the degree of appreciation for horror, suffering and Schadenfreude? Is there an unrecognized existential need for a more direct experience -- beyond what was offered through the Colosseum, and similar fora deemed essential throughout the Roman Empire?

Such questions can be seen as contrasting with "facing" what might be held conventionally to be more acceptable -- with one's back to what? How might people cultivate a taste for "facing peace" or "facing sustainability" -- with their backs to war? Controversially it might be asked whether peace and sustainability are tragically "horrific" in other ways, as yet unrecognized -- if only as the horror of boredom in the absence of excitement?

Engaging courageously with the unthinkable? The conventional avoidance of the existential realities of nuclear warfare have been controversially called into question by the strategic framing of a "winnable" nuclear war, as articulated by Herman Kahn (On Thermonuclear War, 1960), followed by Thinking about the Unthinkable (1962) and Thinking about the Unthinkable in the 1980s (1984).

Given the extensive fictional anticipation of apocalyptical catastrophe and nuclear Armageddon, arguably a step beyond "thinking" is now appropriate for humanity. A taste is indeed offered in developed countries by the increasing range of natural disasters with the associated loss of life. Arms length exposure is offered by the media to the tragic condition of refugees in many developing countries.

Beyond what is considered admissible in fictional exploration, how might the collective sacrifice of humanity be imagined -- for a higher cause yet to be credibly articulated? Collective sacrifice has indeed been enabled in the past, as variously presented, but with a limited focus:

The psychosocial implications of the COVID pandemic have been presented as requiring a form of collective sacrifice -- in marked contrast to the mortal personal risk of engagement in conventional warfare (Cowering for One's Country in the War against Coronavirus, 2020).

There is of  course a major difference between sacrifice imposed upon others (Hiroshima, carpet bombing, etc) and that undertaken voluntarily with fatal implications for the participants (Human sacrifice in Aztec culture; suicide attacks; suicide by pilot). Especially problematic is when the redemptive implications of sacrifice are articulated and crafted for others only. As noted by Roger Griffin:

In Redemption by War (1982), Roland Stromberg addressed the inadequacy of existing historical explanations for the almost "manic bellicosity of the European intellectuals, writers, artists, scientists" at the crucial beginning of the terrible war of 1914-18. He confirms that not only the avant-garde, but ordinary people from every class were eager to witness a "cultural rebirth" unfolding in an age of machines and masses rather than popes and princes.

Far more challenging is the process of mass suicide, voluntarily undertaken for a higher cause -- of which multiple instances are documented by Wikipedia.  Mass suicide notably occur in religious settings. In war, defeated groups may resort to mass suicide rather than being captured. Is the process to be anticipated -- if not encouraged as an honourable option -- in the face of emerging crises?

Learning to "love the bomb"? This process was explored in a 1964 black comedy film -- How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb -- that satirizes the Cold War fears of a nuclear conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States. Known simply and more commonly as Dr. Strangelove, the film is often considered one of the best comedies ever made, as well as one of the greatest films of all time.

In the film, "Dr. Strangelove" is a former Nazi and scientist, suggesting Operation Paperclip, the US effort to recruit top German technical talent at the end of World War II. The character is an amalgamation of RAND Corporation strategist Herman Kahn, rocket scientist Wernher von Braun (a central figure in Nazi Germany's rocket development program recruited to the US after the war), and Edward Teller, the "father of the hydrogen bomb".

Dr. Strangelove ridicules nuclear war planning. It takes shots at numerous contemporary Cold War attitudes such as the "missile gap" but it primarily directs its satire on the theory of mutually assured destruction (MAD), in which each side is supposed to be deterred from a nuclear war by the prospect of a universal cataclysm regardless of who "won". A planned sequel was set largely in underground bunkers, where Dr. Strangelove had taken refuge with a group of women. The pattern has been explored otherwise (Ann Hornaday, 'Don't Look Up' is a satire in the mold of 'Dr. Strangelove' and 'Idiocracy', The Washington Post, 8 December 2021).

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

For further updates on this site, subscribe here