Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 02:49:25 EDT
From: <JAL137@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.society.futures
Subject: RE: Something different from the rest

Voltaire said that "history is the lie commonly agreed upon."  A perhaps modern
translation of this sentence would be "history is bullshit." You see,  as an
"honest" historian I can tell you that we create history as much as we document
it. We have at our fingertips a scant few clues as to the nature of the past.
We fill in the rest with "established" theories and so on. This means we don't
really know shit.  The further back the historcal subject,  the more unknown.
Ever try to write a paper on neolithic culture?
My point is that your question if refreshingly valid.  If we make up history,
why not the future?  I'm an omnidirectional kind of guy.
The clues we have to the future lie in the present,  and the further away the
subject,  the more hokey the interpretation gets.  So I will begin by saying
that in the 20th century,  science and technology has been the foremost
catalyst for human social and cognitive change.
An unknown patent clerk declared that time and space were relative.  He was
indirectily responsible for the destruction of two Japanese cities,  a massive
nuclear arms race,  and a hokey made for television movie called
"The Day After."  Obviously nuclear weapons represent a definite influencing
factor in the future of the human race.  Post-WW 2 sci-fi has attempted to
paint the future with this palette; some of it was positive,  some negative.
For instance "Star Trek" and the civilization it represented was one in which
humans suddenly became enlightened and rid themselves of sure nuclear threat.
Nice.  But as a species we ain't that holy.  Following that genre,  we have
the anti-Trek,  as it were, in the Mad Max/Nuclear Holocaust trend.  You know,
hairy,  Australian barbarians roaming the outback Kerouak-style.  This genre
implied that the nations of the world....hmmmm,  sometime around Christian
Armageddon....were stupid enough to wipe one another out with atom bombs.
Well,  humans can be pretty stupid,  but not that dense.  Nuclear holocaust
is a logical conclusion to an illogical species.
What these sci-fi futurists didn't take into account is MAD,  not those angry
mamma's,  Mutually Assured Destruction--the best defense ever devised.  Nuclear
weapons have ended total war between the great powers -- China, Germany,
America, England, France,  Italy, Israel, Russia(s), et. al.. Now that we all
have nuclear weapons,  it will be impossible to render any nation under total
submission and/or occupation.  We may have skirmishes in the future,  but we
can never take over another industrial power without a significant
portion of our nation being wiped out.  "Peacemaker" isn't a misnomer. No
industrialized nation would want to face utter destruction for territorial
expansive reasons -- economics subjugation does that nicely without guns. Now
skeptics will say "but what about lunatics like...." Did you notice that these
deranged leaders are almost always Muslim?  Bigotry aside,  if Arab nations
could ever amass the trillions of dollars, the infrastructure, the resources,
and the technical skill to wipe out one of the industrial powers,  would they
do so?  Is Islam so powerful,  that millions of people would gladly die to
attack the United States with nucelar weapons?  Ask the troops that surrendered
unconditionally at the Iraqi front.  If the Arab nations, or any other third
world nation gets nuclear weapons,  there may be a few strikes. However, the
retaliation from the industrial powers would assure that nation never crawls
forth from the stoneage again. Grim, yes.  But at least its not Mad Max. Star
Trek is too nice, so don't even think about it.
So...nuclear weapons will play a major role in future developments.  I have a
lot of other ideas....even nicer ones...and I look foreward to replies.
Dave.