Iran, Nuclear Bombs for Peace and 'The Culture of War'/Conventional, Guerrilla/Terrorism

In reading Van Creeveld’s excellent book ‘The Culture of War’ I found several chapters with ideas reviewing not only news events/reports of the last few decades of international conflicts but sociological analysis of the human culture of war and how it affects societies fundamentally. This book isn’t really written with a mind toward political correctness today, instead one discovers a fairly objective analysis of human character and social structures that consistently reveal humanity as addicted to war as an implicit aspect of culture.

So in considering this wonderful investigation of human historical methods and structures of war and why pacifism is so little effective I necessarily considered numerous current events and situations. Van Creeveld has written a few chapters on the subject for the prospects for peace around the global and provided the well-known observation that nuclear weapons developments were largely accountable for the end of war between substantial, established nations since 1945.

Van Creeveld reviews the history of wars since 1945 and of the way nations that are developed have fundamentally given up wars amongst themselves as unthinkable and persuasively provided an observation that guerrilla wars and terrorist movements have not been so constricted by possession of nuclear weapons and threats of mutually assured destruction as to give up war themselves. While the developed nations have sometimes deluded themselves into believing the new democratic party millennium of godless atheist perverse utopia is around the bend and bullying, hate crimes of college students with sheep in their dorms, meth labs on every floor and 4-loco extra in fully stickled refrigerators as natural rights will be stopped soon through anisotropic legal rights amidst social behavorialism based medical expert politico guidance, the undeveloped world has learned that war through terrorism and guerrilla fighting against the first world is getting easier.

While Iran may wish to develop nuclear bombs as a way to assure that the United States or other established states will not invade, it can do little to prevent the kind of anarchic terror that the United States has helped support in Afghanistan since the foundation of Pakistan and subversion of the Iranian government reestablishing the Pahlavi Dynasty.

Iran may wish to join the ranks of nations with nuclear weapons for whom invasion is unthinkable because of the prospects of nuclear war. While Iran cannot launch missiles upon the United States today from Teheran, it could build a cruise missile with a jet engine in a garage (as Van Creeveld pointed out), yet that would not be their essential deterrent--instead that would be Israel...attack Iran and Iran can vaporize Israel. Van Creeveld pointed out that Egypt did not develop nuclear weapons for that very reason--in order that they might keep their options for a conventional war open against the Israelis who would feel no need to vaporize Cairo in reply.

American elites may believe that a world without borders is just ahead, yet a world without borders is a world of lawless guerrilla and terrorist groups that have become the prevailing method of human war activity today. Unless the deterrent of assured nuclear death forces peace to exist, human being inevitably find some method to bring about war. It is through an evolved and effective balance of social powers that anisotropic destruction of the interests of others through war or other lesser means can be reduced.

It is ironic that the neo-liberal Democratic Party elites have forced the invasion of illegal aliens pervasively into the United States that in the long run destabilizes the acquisition of capital by the poor and working class in the U.S.A. while simultaneously reinforcing and external proletariat for the prosecution of future wars of guerrilla and terrorist methodologies upon a soft, more prosperous and preponderantly -white neo-Christian establishment. When the security of national borders has been eliminated then the intifaddah of protracted terrorist conflict may ensue.

The Obama administration just two days ago announced that the electronic high tech fence set by Congress for Construction along the U.S. Mexico border would not be built. That the decision to scuttle the congressional bill from the Bush II years occurs just before an election in order to bring in Latino votes does not go unnoticed.

U.S. policy in many ways is simply of a short-term nature with both major parties being completely out of touch with the longer-range interests of the nation including the environment.

The prospects for peace generally are interesting today. U.S. and first world interests that exploit third world resources in order to continue a high entropy economic growth often support the kind of second and third world policies that support terrorist developments.

Most of the traditional societies of the undeveloped world had warrior occupations for most males that end when colonial authorities arrive. When the colonial authorities are overthrown more anarchic gangs without a culture of war follow to perpetrate atrocities. Van Creeveld points out several facts too obvious to miss besides.

The interest of American women in establishing women's equality in Afghanistan would require as much policing as exists in the U.S.A. so women could safely walk down the street and not be 'fair game'. Poor countries cannot afford that kind of law enforcement and instead men protect the women personally and do not want them to present temptation to the predators-that is a conservative society. Others have pointed out that in several rural Muslim societies where tribal peace exists women may go without covering their heads in black bags for security.

The United States business leaders also stimulate the rise of terrorism and guerrilla war in developing countries through reinforcement of corrupt political leadership that will cooperate with resource extraction for profit leaving environmental mess and thug rule in the wake. I am not much of an optimist on the long-range success of foreign or domestic policies of the United States on economics. None are at all close on real political needs, and none have the capacity or competence to reform and limit the power of concentration of wealth in corporation, networks or individuals. It should be an exciting balance of the century ahead.