Maybe one must look to Iran and/or Iraq for understanding. In public political demonstrations fanatics sometimes bite the head off snakes. Perhaps that informs us of the theory of destroying a capital and the political leaders in it; without the head the body dies.
The paradigm may be old. It is possible that in modern general wars, should they occur- and general war is still rather improbable concerning the larger powers, discrete and detached, decentralized leadership with ad hoc organizations will survive the loss of a national capital. Smaller nations alternatively, that engage in war, may have much invested demographically and materially in a capital city and could not survive the loss.
China’s civil wars and the Japanese invasion show the adaptability of some economies and polities to reorganization beyond a traditional capital city with mobile leadership. Moscow is generally regarded as the heart of Russia since Kiev was lost to the Germans twice in the 20th century. Russia might nor survive the loss of Moscow as readily as the U.S. would survive possibly with repressed though sorrowful mirth the destruction of Washington D.C. (since the politicians seem inept starting with Bill Clinton).
In ancient times a capital was the real seat of power of royalty or undemocratic ruler. His or her weapons and wealth were concentrated in the capital city whereas today wealth and capital stock is dispersed globally. If a ruler wasn’t able to defend his or her capital it was a test of strength that was lost. If London had fallen, to the Romans or whomever, then the former Celtic tribes were truly cooked.
Consider what would occur if a nation suddenly had a capital conquered by some modern telecommunications firm that infects every phone it sold with bugs that forward information to a foreign government, or if the political leadership communicates on unsecured email servers that let foreign governments ditto every action the slaved government takes; that could be nearly as effective as a physical conquest of a capital though covert.
The paradigm may be old. It is possible that in modern general wars, should they occur- and general war is still rather improbable concerning the larger powers, discrete and detached, decentralized leadership with ad hoc organizations will survive the loss of a national capital. Smaller nations alternatively, that engage in war, may have much invested demographically and materially in a capital city and could not survive the loss.
China’s civil wars and the Japanese invasion show the adaptability of some economies and polities to reorganization beyond a traditional capital city with mobile leadership. Moscow is generally regarded as the heart of Russia since Kiev was lost to the Germans twice in the 20th century. Russia might nor survive the loss of Moscow as readily as the U.S. would survive possibly with repressed though sorrowful mirth the destruction of Washington D.C. (since the politicians seem inept starting with Bill Clinton).
In ancient times a capital was the real seat of power of royalty or undemocratic ruler. His or her weapons and wealth were concentrated in the capital city whereas today wealth and capital stock is dispersed globally. If a ruler wasn’t able to defend his or her capital it was a test of strength that was lost. If London had fallen, to the Romans or whomever, then the former Celtic tribes were truly cooked.
Consider what would occur if a nation suddenly had a capital conquered by some modern telecommunications firm that infects every phone it sold with bugs that forward information to a foreign government, or if the political leadership communicates on unsecured email servers that let foreign governments ditto every action the slaved government takes; that could be nearly as effective as a physical conquest of a capital though covert.
No comments:
Post a Comment