Monday, November 27, 2006

what prevents Bush from "throwing the long bomb"?

* steven in the comments takes a look at Xymphora's reasons why Iran won't be attacked, and adds:
"I thought we have not had a civilization ending thermonuclear war because everyone supposed MAD was true. Beyond the prospect of massive destruction of buildings, infrastructure, agricultural development, and people, the economy (the elite's main concern) would suffer irreparable damage.

Xymphora argues that the U.S. won't go into Iran because the people in charge here still believe in major parts of this theory. According to Xymph, there are limits to the things the powerful will do in order to steal the world's valuables.

However, I'm not sure that MAD is now true. I'm not sure that attacking Iran, or anyone else, assures unacceptable consequences.

If neo con planning is about anything, it's about arranging things so their team comes out ahead in the long run. The economic bankruptcy of the United States and its elites is a function of the growing strength and aggresiveness of the rest of the world, particularly those folks we can't control in Russia, China, and the Islamic world, like Iran.

If you can't compete any more, and you can't figure out a way for your "enemies" to give you all their valuables, all I'm saying, there is always the idea of "eliminating" them. The consequences in that event, where there really are no powers left in the world to put up a challenge, would be much less problematic.

Xymphora's argument depends on the elites in this country, represented by the neo cons and others, to shrink back from doing anything like this that would benefit them in the long run.

He assumes that it's only Germans who can implement "final solutions."

Having laid out my apocalyptic vision, I wonder whether it is that unreasonable, and if it does present a possible if not likely scenario, what can anybody do about it."
"I would agree that it would be unlikely and even crazy to think that Bush, or anyone else, would start a thermonuclear war just to regain one's economic position. However, if we've found that moral, legal, and psychological arguments are ineffective deterents for preventing the continued killing of Iraqis, what does prevent the President from "throwing the long bomb"?"

1 comment:

Miguel said...

I stand by my earlier comments on this blog: the U.S. is highly unlikely to attack Iran. In fact, I think the prospect is becoming increasingly unlikely.

Sorry Larisa, Seymour and Sam Gardiner: I just don't see the Neocon influence being strong enough anymore.