Sunday, February 17, 2008

First The Guns, Then The Paranoia


Nothing like a good old-fashioned arms race to spice up the world's problems.

It's curious how they always seem to follow the same course - first the guns, then the paranoia and then... well, let's leave that for a moment.

Guns. Nobody likes them more than the United States of America. Its economy may be in decline, it may be struggling to breathe under a suffocating blanket of debt, but there's nothing known to man or earth that'll stop it from spending more on its military than every other nation combined. Think about that. Five per cent of the world's population, twenty five per cent of its greenhouse gas emissions, fifty per cent of its military spending. Wowee, zowee!

It's a scary world when the hillbillies have all the guns.

Imagine you live in a big, old house with a big verandah where you like to sit to catch the cool evening breezes in the height of summer. In the big, old house across the street your somewhat strange neighbour also sits out in the evening. But one day you notice something different. Lined up along the porch railing you see the neighbour has leaned a couple of rifles and a shotgun. It's enough that you notice it but you don't react. Then the following night you see that he's added an automatic assault rifle. The next night it's a sniper rifle. About this time you might be getting a little worried about all this firepower and just what the guy has in mind. When you see him actually pointing a cannon at you, just that once, you realize you can't keep giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Now take that situation to the global stage. You have one country that has served notice that it reserves the right to launch "pre-emptive" war against any nation that it perceives as an emerging rival, militarily or even economically. That's right. If your economy stands to surpass his economy, he claims the right to attack you. If your military or your military and that of other countries with which you may ally yourself threaten to surpass his military might, he claims the right to attack you. On what basis? Because he can. Because might is right.

That little bit of madness is enshrined in today's Bush Doctrine. It's a perverse form of American exceptionalism that has other nations paying a lot of attention to the goings on in Washington. So, what do they see when their gaze shifts to the Potomac?

They see a nation that has gone for its guns, arming itself as though it was already in a total war and preparing for another. They see a nation bent on achieving superiority, on a generational scale, in everything from ships and submarines, to aircraft, to nuclear weapons and the militarization of space itself. They see a nation that has commercialized not just its armaments industry but warfare itself, a government whose elite friends (outfits such as Halliburton) now rake in unconscionable profits from actual warfare, an industrialized mercenary cash cow.

Bush/Cheney & Company cherish fear. It's a weapon they use on everyone, including their own people. To them, it's far easier and infinitely more effective to use fear as a motivator than to employ legitimate means of persuasion. Get'em afraid enough and they'll do anything. The trouble is, other nations aren't as easily intimidated as the American people.

As America has gone for its guns so have others. Russia, China, India, the Koreas, even Japan are all in the midst of one or more arms races. It's even rumoured Brazil may seek to establish a nuclear hegemony in South America. What else do all these countries have in common? They're all emerging economic superpowers. They're all looking to expand trade with each other. And, with the exception of Brazil, they're all geographically contiguous.

Asia Times Online has a good article on the Asian arms race: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/JB14Ad02.html

Russia's Vlad Putin has been outspoken about his nation's insistence that it will not be cowed by American threats. Recently Putin said that Russia will soon field its own advanced weaponry and its own next-generation nuclear weapons with new missiles specifically designed to defeat Bush's anti-missile defence systems. He has scrapped the Coventional Forces treaty and has promised to target Russian missiles at any nation that participates in the Bush anti-missile system.

First the guns, then fear, then more guns and, inevitably, the paranoia. This is the potentially lethal cocktail produced by mixing fear, a lack of confidence, and a powerful shot of suspicion.

Here's the latest example. The United States has announced it will use a missile next week to destroy a defective spy satellite. Washington claims the satellite was launched just over a year ago, failed immediately, and now threatens to smash into earth with a deadly cargo of hydrazine fuel.

Russia, however, suspects an ulterior motive. From BBC:

Russia's defence ministry said the US planned to test its "anti-missile defence system's capability to destroy other countries' satellites".


"Speculations about the danger of the satellite hide preparations for the classical testing of an anti-satellite weapon," a statement reported by Itar-Tass news agency said.


"Such testing essentially means the creation of a new type of strategic weapons," it added.
"The decision to destroy the American satellite does not look harmless as they try to claim, especially at a time when the US has been evading negotiations on the limitation of an arms race in outer space," the statement continued.



The Russian defence ministry argued that various countries' spacecraft had crashed to Earth in the past, and many countries used toxic fuel in spacecraft, but this had never before merited such "extraordinary measures".


It troubles and perplexes me that, as far as our leaders seem to be concerned, these arms races aren't even on their radar. No one on our side speaks out demanding this be stopped and I can only assume that's because it is the United States that is driving this lunacy. The good news is that not every arms race leads to major power war. The Cold War is an example, although there was a lot of luck involved and it had an abundance of troubles of its own. However the First and Second World Wars clearly did trace back to arms races.


There are political and economic shifts underway of a tectonic scale. It'll be tough enough travelling that rocky road without everyone pointing guns with hair triggers.








8 comments:

Johnathon said...

Being a dual American-Canadian, I would have to agree with your essay you posted.

I also would opine that I am thankful for President Bush putting the world on notice that if you fuck around (like Bin Laden did on 9/11, and Saddam did for 12 years after GW1) that you're going to pay the price.

Sometimes the price is death (as the terrorists now understand) or freedom ( as the Iraqi's are now enjoying).

In respect to the right to bear arms, lets just say that in your world, people get killed without being able to defend themselves, while in my world, I kill the person trying to kill me.

I guess leftist liberals don't cherish life the same way Republicans and Conservatives do.

And by the way, did you see all those American flags being waved in Kososvo today? You must have.

YOu also must remember that was a PRE-EMPTIVE war waged by your hero Bill Clinton.

But I guess since he was a Democrat, he gets a break.

Cheerio.

The Mound of Sound said...

An amusing response Jonathon, just not terribly well thought out and awfully weak factually.

Republicans "cherish" life? That's pretty funnty, I admit. Certainly cherish their own, given the success of your Chickenhawk administration in dodging the Vietnam war. Cheney, alone, bagged five deferments. Awesome. Too bad they didn't show the same regard for the lives of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who've died needlessly since 2003. I guess those weren't lives to be cherished. Good those people didn't "kill the person trying to kill them", eh Johnny?

Since you brought it up, what do you make of "all those American flags being waved in Kosovo today"? They're being exploited for a reason Johnny, and it's not to say "thanks."

By the way, that wasn't a pre-emptive war, quite the contrary. No nation within NATO or the US ever contended its security was threatened. It wasn't a war at all, pre-emptive or otherwise, but merely a bombing campaign. It's an important, albeit subtle distinction, Johnny.

Yes, Bush did "put the world on notice" and everybody got to sit back and watch just how silly he was afterward. By the way, where is bin Laden now anyway?

As for "paying the price", you're looking at a $2-trillion price tag for Bush's wild misadventures and an even greater price in so many other ways in the decades to come.

Mike said...

"freedom ( as the Iraqi's are now enjoying)."

If by freedom you mean living in fear of death and murder everyday from sectarian violence or from the angry Christian occupiers. If by enjoy you mean going with out food water or electricity for days or weeks on end, and eeking out an existence in the midsts of chaos.

Jonothan, why are you typing? As an American, you can sign up to go fight your glorious war in Iraq. You might even be lucky and live to see the day bin Laden actually gets captured ("dead or alive" remember?).

Speaking of chickenhawks.

MoS, jonothan is one of those anti-Muslim bigots who wants a full out war to destroy an entire religion, he just doesn't want to have to actually, you know, do it himself. A bigot, a fascist and a coward. Just like Bush and Cheney.

The Mound of Sound said...

Hey Mike, thanks for stopping by. Maybe you're right and I should give a shit about Jonathan and his motivations but I guess I'm too old and tired to bother.
I'm beginning to wind down this blog because I fail to see the utility in continuing to say simple variations of the same thing, over and again.

Johnathon said...

Let me get this straight.

You say the 1999 bombing of Kosovo was not a war? What was it then?

If the USA only bombed Iraq and didn't send in any troops, I guess that wouldn't be a war either.

Here is the truth, smartypants.

"NATO's bombing campaign lasted from March 24 to June 11, 1999, involving up to 1,000 aircraft operating mainly from bases in Italy and aircraft carriers stationed in the Adriatic. Tomahawk cruise missiles were also extensively used, fired from aircraft, ships and submarines. All of the NATO members were involved to some degree—even Greece, despite publicly opposing the war".

So what war was Greece OPPOSING?

Maybe you should ask them smartypants.

Source...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War

Also, Nato did send in a small amount of ground troops.

Google it smartypants.

Next, you say the Iraqis are not a "free people".?

A democratically elected government, provincial governors, a legitimate army and police,oil contracts with OPEC and so forth.

That isn't part of a free society?

So what your saying is..... The Iraqi people were better off with Saddam (even though he killed a million of his own),and they're not free (even though they voted with the ink on their finger.

Wow, you leftists are supposed to be the party of "human rights". I guess that doesn't include the Iraqi people.

Can you imagine after WW2, people saying Europe wasn't better off?

It's not America's fault that some muslims are crazy people and can't embrace democracy.

You clowns make it seem like ALL OF IRAQ is in turmoil when you know damn well (unless you're retarded) that the only problems are in Baghdad.

The Kurds are not death cult killers, they're living a great life in the North.

In Basra in the South, the Brits pulled out, and now the Iraqis are in control.

So quit it with your leftard assertions that IRAQ IS IN CHAOS.

That's nothing but horseshit.

Iraq is better off, you leftists who are jealous of America are pissed off that the war has been nothing but a success.

In 30 years Iraq will be continue to be a friend to the world and will be another "moderate" muslim state.

Don't let your jealousy towards America get in the way of logical thinking.

Sometimes war is needed to give people a shot at freedom.

Don't you remember history smartypants?

And when you loons talk about Vietnam, remember it was the country of France who started that war, not America.

Cheerio.

The Mound of Sound said...

Hi Johnny, Smartypants here. I did some checking into the joyous display of American flags in Kosovo. Turns out the Kosovors are scared shitless of the mess they'll be in if the flow of aid dries up. It's currently running at about 70% of their GDP. Meanwhile that country's balance of trade deficit also runs at 70% of GDP. They seem to like that number because it also represents their unemployment level. The "new" government is hopelessly corrupt and armed, criminal gangs seem to offer the best employment prospects. There is a thriving black market economy trading in smuggled cigarettes, gasoline and concrete. Cool, eh?
Best of all, this hopelessly destabilized trainwreck stands as Europe's first Muslim country.

The Mound of Sound said...

Sorry Jonny but I wanted to respond to a couple of your other dubious points. All is not as delightful in Kurdistan as you imagine. It could be where Iraq's real civil war begins. Read and learn.

The US was bombing Iraq, for years, and no one claimed it as a war. Read and learn.

Yes, NATO did send in some ground troops but only after the Serbs withdrew. Some are still there protecting the ethnic Serbs from butchery at the hands of Kosovors. Read and learn.

Iraq has a legitimate army and police? Do you make this stuff up? It's the Iraqi people who tell anyone who'll listen that they were better off before the occupation. Read and learn, please?

And just how are things on the ground in Basra after the Brits withdrew? Read and learn.

Jonny, you're factually challenged because you simply don't read enough. Read Peter Galbraith's book, "The End of Iraq" if you want to see what's coming. He knows because he essentially wrote the Kurdish constitution that ensures what's coming.

Johnathon said...

Well you can read what you want.

I can read what I want.

Check out iraqthemodel.com for some first hand blogging from an Iraqi.

For you to say Iraqis say they were better off with Saddam shows just how ignorant you are towards the Iraqi people.

WOuld you want to live in a country ruled by Saddam?

I don't think so, and I don't think they do either.

When you mention people in Iraq saying they were better off, I have heard that too.

However, I also understand that these people were obviously Sunni and are now the minority.

It's not hard for the left wing media to find 1 or 2 people to carry their message.

Again, you wouldn't want to live under Saddam, so common sense says the Iraqis wouldn't either.

You must forget all the American flags being flown and all the flowers being given to coalition troops after the invasion in 2003.

You don't care about human rights, you only care about trying to bash America anytime you can.

Admit it, it's a Liberal pasttime.