Promotion of nuclear war as a vital global necessity?

Time for a Remedial Global Nuclear War? (Part #8)

---

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

---

Beyond hope-mongering: The controversial question is whether the challenges of global governance have become so complex that assumptions regarding the possibilities of fruitful dialogue on the matter are increasingly naive exercises in hope-mongering and tokenism. The anti-war movement seemingly has little of coherence to offer in response to such challenges -- even if "stopping" is as successful as is hoped. The military sustains its coherence through being enthusiastically poised to "start" a conflict of global proportions -- eroding and destroying any latent opposition to it to the extent possible.

There is of course the irony that the military-industrial complex is readily framed as intrinsically evil by the anti-war movement, whilst the pacifist tendencies of the latter are themselves held to be dangerously naive -- if not evil -- by those favouring a military posture and the potential of nuclear strikes as a means of eliminating evil. The "stand-off" between the two perspectives can be understood as a feature of many decades -- one that has become tedious in its sterility in practice. Given the many critical challenges of increasing dimensions -- for which there is little real prospect of resolution in practice -- there is a case for promoting an alternative possibility.

Courageously "clearing the air"? As in many archetypal tales, is it time to "clear the air" and "have it out" -- as in the millennial-old pattern between competing gangs and tribes? Such a dynamic has always been appreciated in resolving leadership conflicts in school playgrounds, prisons and military camps -- for lack of any practical alternative. The process is enthusiastically celebrated and re-enacted in competitive sports and many movies -- in contrast to the limited attention and credibility accorded to "peace games".

Is there a case for shifting from "pussy-footing" proxy warfare to use of the thousands of nuclear weapons that have been so assiduously developed and deployed? Rather that cowardly techniques of "arms length" proxy warfare, manipulating others to fight for them -- thereby dishonouring the military tradition -- is it time for countries to place themselves "at risk" and to "stand-up" for what they believe in opposing each other?

Is it time to be courageously prepared to "take a bullet" rather then cowering in distant bunkers? Is engaging in nuclear warfare to be reframed as "biting the bullet" rather than indulging in "mealy mouth" discourse? (Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Skin in the Game: Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life, 2018).

What does it take to get out of trench of complacency, to stand up and be targetted -- if one may not be able to shoot the other first?

Just war theory: For the opposing sides, this would be readily framed as a war by the "Good" against "Evil" -- according to the principles of just war theory, articulated with the aid of religions, according to the highest accessible principles. Such principles could be fruitfully adapted to an honest articulation of "Just suffering theory" (2021).

The US-led NATO alliance clearly holds itself as embodying the "Good" -- if not the angelic, as some might argue. Despite viewing themselves otherwise, the alliance between Russia-China and other countries is readily held to be intrinsically evil -- as in references to the Axis of Evil. Alternative perceptions are necessarily held to be inspired by the forces of evil. The actions of each side embody the "good" in opposition to the "evil" embodied by the other. Humanity has not developed insights to transcend this paradox -- and sees little need to invest in such possibilities, in contrast with the massive investment in imposing the good on the evil other.

---

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