Bombast, Bombs and Rockets

People are always at a loss when something happens. They are  especially upset when something big happens, something that changes the world in which they live. The sudden appearance of Iran and India on the world scene is one of those big somethings, at least for those governments not prepared for such events.

It's not so surprising that the Chinese and Russian Empires have been resurrected, because we've had to deal with their predecessors for many centuries. India and Iran are different because they have not had any independent global presence for a long time, although both were seats of powerful ancient Empires. Pakistan, too, should be included with India and Iran for the same reasons. South Asia and the Middle East have been home to those and other civilizations for as long as China.

We really shouldn't be surprised about the resurgence of States such as India, Iran and Pakistan, because there is no reason to believe those peoples are any less capable than ourselves. That there is consternation in both Eastern and Western capitals about the likes of Iran and North Korea reflects the usual, prejudicial view of the world which assigns a lower status to those not as powerful as ourselves. Our governments behave in the image of the large apes we are, hooting and hollering, puffing up and thumping chests. It's all about who will be alpha, and who beta, gamma, delta, etc. This sort of thing goes on until a day of reckoning, when a brash gorilla arrives in the neighborhood which is not intimidated by the Phony War.

Looking over the long stretch of human history - the last ten millennia or so - it's obvious that technology has not been forgotten or that it gets easier to reinvent. Roman arches and hydraulic (Portland) cement were lost during the Dark Ages, only to be reinvented in the late Middle Ages. Once someone does it, it seems more obvious to later generations. The very hardest thing for any human being to do is come up with a genuinely new idea. A new idea is far more difficult than climbing Everest, and even more difficult than the Conquest of Iraq. It is a fact about humans, that we actually live tedious lives filled with conventional performances, in which something new and different is very rare. Nevertheless, we pride ourselves on our accomplishments, preferring to see them as uniquely outstanding achievements.

Skills and abilities are distributed in the population, so that one person is good at this while another does that. There are no statistically significant differences of intellectual ability or physical skills between the human populations in various parts of the world. In other words, every society has its idiots and geniuses in about the same measure. The immediate consequence is that every society can acquire nuclear weapons and space travel, especially once those technologies are on display.

It's hard to build an atomic fusion bomb. It's much less difficult to build a fission bomb. Dynamite was a terror weapon a century ago, but it has been superceded by far more powerful explosives, most of which are cheap and easy to produce. What a difference a century makes! Now that the example of all those weapons is before us, almost any school boy can build one. Thanks to a few clues garnered by Soviet spies, the Soviet Union was able to make its nuclear weapons in short order. Without the spies, it probably would have taken an extra year or so to complete the first Soviet A-bomb. For those who achieved the A-bomb, it did not take long to get the H-bomb, the next logical step in that line of thinking. The Soviet's biggest advantage in nuclear weapons was knowing that it could be done. And now that advantage accrues to the Indians, Persians and all the others in between.

It's the same with rockets and space travel. The technology is widely advertised, not in detail, but in its general composition and results. Everyone knows that rockets are powered by an oxidizer and propellant, typically liquid oxygen and alcohol, kerosene or hydrogen. Small rockets have become children's toys available wherever toys are sold, despite their hazards. The main differences between firecrackers, Roman Candles, toy rockets and the Space Shuttle are in scale and engineering, not principles. So, given the widespread ability to imitate and innovate, it should not be surprising that space-going rockets are being built all over the world. It's the in-thing to do.

Governments and businesses go to great lengths to protect their secrets, thinking that secrecy will give them an advantage over their competitors. For a short time, they are correct in that belief, but only for a short time: there is nothing so interesting as other people's secrets. So all the money and effort spent on secrecy is ultimately wasted, although it does delay distribution of the protected knowledge. The irony of secrecy is that the only way to keep something secret is not to know it at all. The secrets of nuclear bombs and rockets are best kept if they are never known or used, which defeats their purpose in International bullying.

To the foregoing tedious discussion, I add what I believe is the simple truth: things are going to happen as they happen, secrets or no secrets. Despite the warnings of History and teachings of the Sages, some people have an unwavering attraction to fame and fortune, however gained. For a certain type of person, there is no greater pleasure than puffing up before the masses as did Il Duce. For others bent on revenge or mastery, there are no greater satisfactions than genocide or imposing abject slavery. It's not enough for some people to make domestic animals perform as they wish; they need to dominate that most vicious prey, human beings. Societies suffer the same psychotic megalomania and hysteria. The latest mass hysteria is the supposed need to have nuclear weapons and space traveling rockets. Those are the things the Big Boys have; therefore that is what establishes one as a Member of the Gang. There is nothing at all unusual about that.

If all that is true, what does it imply about foreign policy?

One possible course is to discourage possession of nuclear weapons and space rockets. But, realistically, that will only happen when the Big Boys give them up; i.e., when the Big Boys resign their positions. Another course is the adoption of different toys. For example, the Austrian Emperor Franz Josef tried to make Music into a necessity of Empire. The Ancient Greeks invented the Olympics for this purpose. The trouble with Music and Olympics is they do not beat opponents into submission, forcing subservience, as do guns and bombs. So States given to proving their alpha status will treat winners of piano competitions as wimps. Once the arms race begins, it is nearly impossible to stop. This is conventionally known as Riding the Tiger.

Another possibility is, of course, war. Just have it out, and the sooner the better. That was a common policy in the first half of the Twentieth Century, with devastating results. That is the policy of Washington's Neo-Conservatives, led by Vice-President Dick Cheney. (I am often tempted to confuse him with Lon Cheney. Who is the evil monster?) The Neo-Con idea is straightforward enough: kill them before they kill us. The necessity and morality of that strategy was proved by Al Qaeda's attack on Sept. 11, 2001 which destroyed the World Trade Towers. Of course, there is a small philosophical difficulty with this position: it applies equally to everyone concerned, offenders, defenders and bystanders, so justifies everything without discrimination.

There are several ways out of seemingly endless wars. One is the Hobbesian solution demonstrated in The Day the World Stood Still: irrevocably appoint a King or Gort to oversee us. The trouble with Hobbes' solution is that the King can do anything, so whatever the Monarch does is just. Unfortunately, not everyone has the same opinion, so there are always plots to overthrow Kings, some of which eventually succeed. Thus, Hobbes' Leviathan is not a stable solution. Another solution is the United Nations, which is an attempt to limit the competition between States to the less murderous forms. The U.N.'s problem is reluctance or unwillingness to interfere in the internal affairs of States, unless one of the world's leading bullies takes the task on itself. Unfortunately, this allows leading States to interfere at will, as in Iraq. It is also possible to apply the MAD strategy of the Cold War, which forces contenders into calculation of outcomes, of the relation between means and ends. When, as in the Cold War, the contenders are armed with Doomsday weapons, smaller players are sent to the sidelines for fear of their lives. Cold War is essentially an oligopolistic version of Hobbesian Kingship, or a halfway house between the King and the more consensual United Nations.

An idea that has not been tried is electing an Hegemon for a day. In such a scheme, some sort of election is held to authorize one power as Hegemon for a fixed term. This scheme could work if there are enough powerful contenders to assure another election after the first. This scheme relies on MAD, but complicates winning by allowing each power in turn to gain on the others. This is a political solution, because players win by currying favor. The solution could be implemented by making a few modifications to the United Nations.

There are other schemes that might work. However, all schemes rely on one thing: the recognition  by most or all players that the other guy is an equal who cannot be beaten into submission for long. In other words, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is always the outcome of struggle among humans, because there are no inherently superior or inferior human groups. This is the factual basis of the Principle of Equality (which I claim is a fundamental ethical principle). Once the equality of peoples and their governments is acknowledged, it is rational to seek accommodation, a modus vivendi, if one also seeks optimal conditions of survival. ("Rational" is defined in terms of means and ends, or causes and effects.)

It is a very different foreign policy that relies on horse-trading instead of brute force. What motivates horse traders is different from the feelings of warriors: what would satisfy? For example, in the cases of Iran or North Korea, we might ask "What do you want?" or "What do you really want?" If a sincere inquiry is put, eventually we might get to the bottom of the actual answer, especially if it becomes clear (per MAD) that bullying and temper tantrums don't work.