On the Logic of a Post-Military World Order/Direct Death Executives

When the United States and other United Nations member powers launched 112 (later reports suggested hundreds of missiles were launched) million dollar each Tomahawk missiles upon Libya Saturday it suggested that the era of ¾ trillion dollar a year U.S. military costs are not quite over. With the proliferation of missile technology it is easy to envision the chaotic world of the future made possible with a plethora of conventional auto-piloted munitions delivered to g.p.s. coordinates. Yet what of a future world order where science unifies destruction and homicide with political will to act directly?

Instead of a world full of soldiers, airmen, marines and sailors with a cornucopia of high tech specialized weaponry, the ultimate logic of modern weapons of war conferring specific destruction upon grid areas would eliminate military forces and place the particularized power of destruction directly into the hands or voice command of a political leader.

Such scientific progress that would let particle beam devices actually at the speed of light to any location on the planet within a specific bounded are would terminate the need for any other kind of military force beyond ordinary civil gendarmerie and police. Death and destruction delivered with precise computerized accuracy in any shape, quantity or quality globally would terminate whatever opposition force existed at that address.

Though such a weapons development is not all too improbable one day, one must wonder about the theoretical issues that would arise with placing virtually absolute power in the hands of one individual. Would a President with absolute power be willing to give up power? Would a political party with such a power tolerate political plurality?

Human culture has always coexisted with geographic regions. Human race existed within particular areas and changed only as culture changed. Cultures, race, economy and gender roles arise and continued phenomenally to sometimes be destroyed or perish through environmental challenge. Were Neanderthal’s exterminated through interspecies contact with humans with some sort of venereal disease?

Politically, cultural developments and intercultural contacts may occur as national units, regional units or even civilizations. A global culture may have developed, yet subcultures for local autonomy persist enabling members of a stable culture to order their own affairs democratically. Cultures allow competition and differentiation to exist. A global culture and national sub-cultures may be the present form of social organization, yet differentiation is pressured by uniformist political-economic powers seeking elimination of nationalist subcultures; the dissimulation that all people would be free equally to travel with just one world macro-culture is material. There would inevitably be a global financial apartheid of the travelers, financiers and wealth exploiting the politically disempowered majority, or, alternately, a planetary authoritarian computer guided dictatorship of the proletariat would dress all things political in shades of gray.

What sort of logic would guide plural political powers of absolute particle beam specific death that would permit democratic election? If the President of the nations of the United Nations Security Council each had the particle beam power of death for themselves in their national offices, what gaming conditions could be logically developed to assure a just use and transfer of control of the death field after elections?

If nation-cultures are phenomenal facts in the stream of time wherein a stable time-geography existence confers genetic similarity, how would political leaders decide about rightness or wrongness for use of death fields in relation to economic or national-culture times of instability?

The post-military world environment where none are free from the invasive surveillance of corporate organization and/or government may also bring a post-military world in which each existing cultural leader has the power to kill any or all within his polity or that of rival polities at his/her/its fingertips. One must wonder if that era would be one of peace or terror for the voters. In a future post-military world order political leaders might receive weaponry directly from scientific laboratories able to kill select members of the world populous. Would scientist then not themselves necessarily be political partisans and the de facto military providing assists to the Executive homicidalist for more efficient action?