TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Is militarism anachronistic? Is 21st century militarism a short one-way dead-end street? Is ‘dog eat dog’ domination dogma doomed?

Has the classic Darwinian/Machiavellian strategy become counterproductive and even self-destructive?
Morality aside: To survive 10,000 years ago, 1,000 years ago, and as recently as 100 years ago militarism made sense. But, how do you win a war fought with weapons of mass extinction (‘WMDs’ is a euphemism)? Is the winner the one who lives, i.e. suffers, a few days longer? For most of human existence, it took thousands of warriors weeks to kill thousands. Today, one human could kill millions in minutes. As if to ensure humanity’s demise, many countries and many corporations are further escalating militarism by proliferating access to, and expanding the magnitude of WMEs. Why play russian roulette with humanity’s life?
Gandiji was right when he said, an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind, but today, an eye for an eye will leave the whole world gone.

Share:
  • thumb
    May 18 2014: "In a nutshell"
    1) The forces that hold us in slavery are strong, organized and have tremendous inertia and bonding.
    2) Fighting that force is frutile, a waste of energy
    3) How to win?

    “The secret of change is to focus all of your energy, not on fighting the old, but on building the new”- Socrates

    4) In order to build the new we must:
    a) Understand history, so that we don't repeat it.
    b) Design and build a new model
    c) Educate starting as young as possible before, in place of, and during normal public indoctrination
    5) All of this must be as separated from the old model as possible.
    6) If it is successful it will stand on it's own merit, if not, at least we tried.
    • May 29 2014: Keith, You're mostly right.

      The foundations for geographical governments are built on sand.

      The term(s) Real Estate, Rents, and Mortgage(s) need to be changed.
      Our societies are based on such. And the results are pitiful.
      There is another way. Who out there can tell what that way is?
      Not one in a hundred thousand, I would wager.
      • thumb
        May 29 2014: Tell me, tell me, tell me a story before I go to bed... remember that song??
        • May 29 2014: Tell me a story, Tell me a story, Tell me a story, before I go to bed,
          You promised me, You said you would, Tell me and I'll be good.
          Tell me a story before I go to bed.

          Many years ago... When I was my own grandpa.
      • thumb
        May 29 2014: Tell me about the birds and bees,
        tell me about the flowers and trees,
        Tell me a story, before I go to bed.
        Good night....zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
      • thumb
        May 30 2014: Barry, I've often wondered about the option of making a world wide law, where after we reach a certain age of understanding, if we so much as touch another person without their permission the punishment would be either death or forgiveness. The goal is to totally remove the impact of violence from our way of living or completely from our thoughts.

        I don't believe we would have to become perfect to obtain this situation.

        Even though I grew up in an age of extreme racial hatred in the U.S., I find I think about such conditions very rarely - in thought or emotion. I think removing violence from our thoughts is doable. In a way, in some clubs or social formats, we are able to remove violent thinking from our minds, at least for periods of time. The problem is, of course, getting everyone to join the same club.
        • May 30 2014: Well John, it has been a while. I hope you've been well.

          My thoughts concerning making a world wide law as you've described,
          is that such a law would require we abandon the "golden rule".
          I would be against that sort of thing.

          Extreme racial hatred in the US was fostered by extreme peoples and picked
          up and exploited for profit by the media. Hollywood made the Blackboard Jungle,
          a 1955 social commentary film about teachers in an inner-city school. It is based
          on the novel of the same name by Evan Hunter. Gossip that painted a picture
          seen in theaters around the nation, "make believe", that became a reality.

          In 1955 I was in High School. Riding around, after school, in a '39 Ford coupe
          with my buddies, listening to the radio music disk jockey, 'Huggy Boy', who
          suddenly broadcast news of a riot at Hoover High. It was our school. We had
          left early, and were surprised at the news. Immediately we rushed back, and
          were drawn to the campus in the front of the school, where we joined a large
          crowd of students who were being urged on, by we assumed the local news
          media. Students were directed to run in mass across the large grassy area,
          back and forth, in front of camera's already set up. I hung back, thinking my
          family would be upset, and that I had split school earlier and a teacher might be
          watching the news later. The camera people yelled that they would be taking
          more pictures in a few minutes, behind the school, and urged everyone to go
          there immediately. The kids did. The media packed up, and left.

          These items, the release of the Blackboard Jungle, and Hoover High School's
          contrived fake riot, seem somehow related.
          1. How did "Huggy Boy" a Los Angeles disk jockey, get the news before it occurred?
          2. Was the whole thing contrived just to portray the movie as more than the author
          of the novel of the same name, Evan Hunter. intended?
          3. Does Hollywood, Bollywood, and other media propaganda morph us all?
    • thumb
      May 31 2014: Sometimes there is no winning. We just start over and hope we get it right this time around. History, to me, looks like this: there arise war lords who eventually are consolidated by a king. Then, the Kingdom breaks apart into smaller segments, each on controlled by a new war lord. Then, they are once again unite by a king, and so one and so on.

      There is a pattern here and we appear to be caught in this pattern since we started trying to unit the separate villages. Perhaps there is no cure, as you imply.
    • May 31 2014: Keith, I just discovered a unique site.
      The "Big Brother Awards.de"

      It is self explanatory. They have been giving it out for years.
      I plan to make up one of my own and send it to the
      San Luis Obispo, California MTA bus company.
      They have just finished installing both Video and Audio surveillance.
      Inside each bus are camera(s) and audio recorder(s).
      They have nice black and white signs (bumper sticker sized) that
      expain in large print "VIDEO SURVEILLANCE" and underneath
      in small print "Audio Surveillance". Our Children will soon forget
      that this is a new innovation, and accept their loss of privacy without
      murmur.

      What a pity. I've not read of any Driver or passenger having a problem
      with anti-social behavior, or muggings, or the like. So as a preventative
      measure, there isn't much to substantiate such action. Maybe the DHS
      has invoked some regulation with the power to replace the constitution.
      • thumb
        May 31 2014: "All wars are bankers wars" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfEBupAeo4
        If you have not seen this it will be worth your time, I guarantee it. The quality is poor but it gets the point across. I am thinking of remaking it in high definition with better music and doing the monologue myself. It really explains a lot of the violence that we are forced into for the entertainment and profit of the Rothschilds Inc.

        Big Brother awards.. I like it
        • Jun 1 2014: Keith the video had the right idea.
          But it needs editing down to under 5 minutes.
          It is just too hard to keep people's attention when listening.

          The "nut shell" is that elections are not the answer.
          We have to find a better way to provide leadership with integrity.
          I know the problems, but have no solution.

          If those at the very top were to suddenly disappear, poof, one after
          another, things could be righted quickly. I don't think there is anyone
          that could accomplish that. Jesus sure couldn't. lol
      • thumb
        Jun 1 2014: Not quite that easy but a good start. There are other methods, for instance:
        a) "The best weapon against an enemy is another enemy"- Friedrich Nietzsche
        b) There are three elements needed for fire. fuel, heat and oxygen. Take any element away and no more fire. Fighting fire with fire takes away the fuel. Fighting fire with water takes away the heat.
        So what are the elements needed to continue the NWO??? Take away one and no more NWO.

        Here was the solution I came up with about five years ago:
        "The Law of Supply and Demand, you control it and no government, politician, corporation or military can break it. This law is the only viable solution to all of the world's problems and it is totally up to you! If you don't buy it, they don't make it. It's not them, it's you! If you want more pollution, crime, poverty and injustice, keep buying what they are selling. If you want change, simply change your buying habits. It is that simple!"- Keith W Henline
        It is peaceful, unstoppable and simple enough that is just might work. Right now I know of no better solution without destroying the entire human population.
        • Jun 1 2014: Keith, that is the problem. Alas, it's "The solution."

          We know we are being robbed, but what to do, what to do?

          By keeping populations somewhat happy, they can be milked like cows.
          Give them Music, Entertainment, Drugs, Medical care, and Jobs.
          Promise to pay for an education, they will join the Military.
          They will flock to produce.
          Even when the youths are burdened with debt for their educations.
          Even when Military service results in their deaths and maimings.
          The survivors will flock to produce.
          By keeping populations somewhat happy, they can be milked like cows.
          By keeping populations somewhat happy, they can be milked like cows.
          By keeping populations somewhat happy, they can be milked like cows.

          The only good thing is that we are allowed to Bitch.
  • May 18 2014: Militarism is both cultural and economic. Taking a Darwinian view of economics, there is an economy of life and an economy of death. Our world population stays in balance as we fight and die over resources. We are supposed to believe that wars are fought between capatalism vs communism, or jew vs moslim, but most are over resources. Yes we can remove our selves from the earth, but we don't yet know how to limit our own population or maintain an ecological equalibrium. Until we do militarism will have its place. Yes population growth is near maintenance levels is many countries, but not all. Ever wondered why western nations stand aside and let one african nation suffer genoside yet intervene in another? Examine the population growth in those countries... For China to enter the WTO, they needed to enact their "one child policy" to show they could control their population growth. We give little voice to the pretense that we object to their "one Child policy". With one hand we provide food and birth control, to starving nations and with the other hand, we provide guns. Our technology and our culture have some maturing to do, before our soldiers can lay down their arms and begin building.
    • May 24 2014: I agree with some of your points but your overall statement that we have to fight a war i think negativly against
      • May 24 2014: The cause of conflict and suffering can be viewed from many perspectives. The suffering can stop but, ignorance, culture and tradition have to change. These are things with vast momentum/inertia. Perhaps there is a perspective from which a fulcrum exists of sufficient influence, to bring about those changes. All epiphanies welcome...
    • May 29 2014: When the news is of people starving to death. We automatically know there is a problem.
      When the news again is the same. We automatically know our government's are inept.
      That opinion, once fixed in our minds, never changes.
      For good reasons.
      • May 29 2014: A sad truth with a dead end.
        "There is only now in which to act, and only I to participate in change."
        "Fix that which is broken or build anew."
        "Move around the rock until flow moves the rock." - Water
        Etc. Etc.
  • Jun 4 2014: Danny, National Security versus Reality...
    The setting doesn’t matter where it is on the earth.
    The identity of the politicians and media doesn’t matter.

    Historically, politicians have made up unrealistic fears to herd us into a panic
    so that they can make money by selling us national security. That way they
    can tax us to fund the largest military industrial budget in the entire world.

    The Newspapers and other media want sensationalism to sell their News.
    They just do not care about the truth. Truth is bland, and doesn't sell well.

    How can I be so sure.
    Every few years, something drastic occurs. Usually, it happens where it cannot
    be easily verified by you and I.

    Like all those boats that were attacked or sunk on the high seas, or inside of foreign ports.
    Remember the Maine 1898? It was an accident, a coal explosion. The Lusitania 1918?
    Ostensibly an ocean liner, it was secretly transporting 6 million pounds of shells, ammunition,
    and explosives on behalf of Morgan Bank to help clients, Britain and France. "The Tonkin
    incident 1964", where American destroyer Maddox was supposedly attacked twice, by three
    North Vietnamese torpedo boats, in the Gulf of Tonkin. Historians claim It never happened.
    Politicians used these lies to declare wars.

    But over the years, they noticed that we were wise to their schemes, and they bolstered their lies
    with real time events. Terrorist attacks; here, there, and everywhere, on planes, buildings, ships,
    subways, trains, and during sporting events.

    I think our goal should be closing the gap between our politician's perception of national security
    and the reality that there is probably no reason for national security, dba: "Homeland Security", at all.

    For those who enjoy standing in line with your shoes in your hands and having your body inspected,
    before loading into your airline flight, go for it. For me, I think the reality doesn't justify such nonsense.
    • Jun 4 2014: Spot on. National security or the pretense of it, is about our own governments trying to persuade us there is a problem, whether that be terrorist or otherwise, but in reality it is our own governments creating the problems so as to take liberties away from the people. Why should the airport need to be more secure than any other form of transport or area of the country. Its not at all about terrorism, but about controlling the movement of people. The majority of squatted terrorist attacks in the USA were created by the fbi, and in the UK the mi5.

      Problem----Reaction---Solution.

      It would be great if these military men, security and police officers were not so naive and mislead to beleive the lies they are fed. Without the cooperation of the above, the hiarchies would find it difficult to implement the control they do.

      Besides, I would rather live with the threat of terrorism, than live in a controlled state were our own governments create terror in order to implement control.
  • May 15 2014: 100 years ago, people were pronouncing the death knell of militarism, just as it was being perfected. Don't filter the past through the present. Militarism as we understand it was an invention of the very late 19th century, particularly in the formation of the German Empire (Prussia). Before then, the idea of designing and running a culture entirely around an army had occurred to nobody (except possibly Napoleon).
    • May 16 2014: Re: My "Today" lasting 15,000 years. How was it possible for one human to kill millions of humans in minutes 15,000 years ago?
      If you want to refer to really sophisticated militarism, yes that didn't start until the Egyptians, Persians, and Romans, but I was referring to the notion that started with cave people. Just basic cave man 101 'club them before they club you.'
      • May 19 2014: You need to learn something. ANYTHING at all. You can't tell the difference between military power and militarism. You also know far too little to even understand what militarism actually is. Militarism is NOT being aggressive. Militarism is NOT being expansionist. Militarism is putting the entire apparatus of the state and nation behind and around the military. A militarist country is no longer a country with an army. It's an army with a country. In a militarist country, the only way to status is explicitly through the military. Everything is made explicitly and openly to serve the military and no other purpose.
        • May 29 2014: Hey Ada, enjoy this.

          Bryan, sounds like you're describing the US.
          The Military commander in chief holds the highest office.
          The next is the Secretary of Defense, the Military's and NSA's second in command..
          And then the Secretary of State, using private mercenaries, and the CIA.

          By the way Bryan, I can tell the difference, and I know far more than you.
          Reality and you are like that pile in the pasture we all step around.
          Have a really nice day.
    • May 17 2014: Brian: what about the largest empire ever, the Mongols' ? And US history could certainly be seen as a steady and intentional evolution into a Military State at least since the Spanish-American War.
      • May 19 2014: The Mongols were not militarists. They were tribal. As soon as they settled down, their armies just became arms of the state. Your claim about "US history" is based on blind, ignorant dogma, not reality. The USA is not an army with a country. We are not and have never approached the Prussian Kingdom nor German Empire.
  • thumb
    Jun 10 2014: We kill people who kill people...because killing people is wrong..its a never ending cycle..a continuous loop...we cannot solve a problem with another problem...As long as there is profit in WAR...world will never have peace...!!!
  • Jun 8 2014: Humans are generous at the banquet and treacherous on the lifeboat. Improving context improves behavior.
    Those who believe we can create a decent standard of living for everyone (with a non-oppressive govt.), will work towards that beginning. Those who think it is impossible to create a decent standard of living for everyone, will fight fight fight with guns a blazin' until the very end (i.e. until a few decades from now).
    Did our ancestors struggle and die to evolve civilization, so that we could stupidly stumble into extinction, just when world peace is closer than ever?
    Really, the best plan our leaders can think of is mass suicide? Their plan is to never stop fighting and all you get is just some pathetic hope that your bomb shelter protects you well enough and long enough so that you can parent a new primitive mutant species?
  • Jun 6 2014: Militarism ended decades ago except for in a few tin-pot dictatorships and in North Korea. Militarism is not the same thing as using ones military in an aggressive fashion.
  • thumb
    Jun 4 2014: I remember the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorah whose only 'Salvation' came from its destruction.
    'Dog eat dog' is not right, not the best, not wise. But humanity would not listen and may decide to experiment with its destiny to proove that 'dog eat dog' should be the way.
    Let's watch this keenly when we still can.
  • thumb
    Jun 4 2014: Is militarism anachronistic? Is 21st century militarism a short one-way dead-end street? Is ‘dog eat dog’ domination dogma doomed?

    The answer seems NO to all three questions. There will always be individuals or groups or countries who want to dominate, rule, or control people and resources. Personal and national interests and security are always paramount - then, now, and tomorrow.

    "Militarism is the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests. It may also imply the glorification of the ideals of a professional military class" and the "predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state ...

    Militarism has been a significant element of the imperialist or expansionist ideologies of several nations throughout history. Prominent examples include the Ancient Assyrian Empire, the Greek city state of Sparta, the Roman Empire, the Aztec nation, the Kingdom of Prussia, the British Empire, the Empire of Japan, the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (which would later become part of the Soviet Union), the Italian Empire during the reign of Benito Mussolini, Nazi Germany and American imperialism.

    After World War II, militarism appeared in many of the post-colonial nations of Asia (i.e. North Korea, Pakistan, Burma and Thailand) and Africa (i.e. Liberia, Nigeria and Uganda). Militarist regimes also emerged in Latin America; some, such as the right-wing administration of Augusto Pinochet in Chile, gained power in coups through U.S. support, while others, such as the leftist Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, were elected..."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarism
  • Jun 3 2014: Weak, cowardly men and their big boy toys. That's the basics of war. It's never (or at least not in my life time) been about humanity; just bad politics, economic gain, world order and control. If war were ever about humanity, our govs would not be shaking the hand of the Saudi Arabian king, yet sanctioning a pretty much liberated Russia for no reason.
    War has always been about a few at the top wanting to make big changes for the masses at the bottom.

    Your question however, signifies a greater awareness of the reality and counterproductivity of war.

    And your point on wmd's etc is interesting, because the plan of those at the top is not to be at war with countries, but to have all people from all countries under the same control, same military, same currency, same culture, etc... War and terrorism is the way to make this happen. WMDs will not be a requirement of this new order. Civil unrest will be more likely than any country to country war. All govs of all countries are prob currently working together, just pretending not to like each other (although I assume there are some independent countries from this agenda). Basically the EU and the USA are behaving like fascist and expansionist organisations, not dissimilar to Hitler and his Nazi troops, but they're doing it in such a covert way, the patriots of western nations are too biased to pay attention or notice.

    That said, the best way to counteract covert affairs and world order politics is to not react to any form of terrorism or cyber attacks etc... As more than likely it is our own countries intelegence agencies trying to take away more liberations. Instead just hold love and peace in your heart and mind and beleive that the world is beautiful. Stay peaceful always.
  • thumb
    May 31 2014: "Gandiji was right when he said, an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind, but today, an eye for an eye will leave the whole world gone..."

    This is true but we have replace this Archaic notion of justice by allowing people to keep their eyes while suffering a lose of freedom. Only if murder is being considered do we contemplate a death penalty or remove freedom entirely for all their life.

    Even war has changed -at least among civilized people- there are rules.

    Sometimes, war is the the only price to pay in order to achieve Justice and or Freedom. Are we a brutal species? Yes we can be, but the drive to survive is powerful and demanding. It is part of who and what we are. When there is no outside element pushing our need to survive to the forefront of our mind, we tend to live in peace, that is, most modern western nations try to accomplish this feat.

    Militarism will be with us for many years to come, perhaps for centuries. As it is said, "...all it takes for evil to succeed is that good people do nothing..."

    Even if we do achieve "peace on earth", that does not guarantee that we will achieve "peace in the Universe".
  • thumb
    May 31 2014: Hey Barry, I know what you mean. When I was stationed at Fort Carson Colorado in 1971, after returning from VIet Nam, a car manufacturer was doing a commercial. It was a contest between an armored personnel carrier and the SUV. My Friend was driving the APC. After the APC won, he was told to slow down and let the SUV win.

    So, was the military cooperating with the vehicle manufacturer or was the person producing the commercial responsible for the fake outcome? I guess my point is that some individuals cheat but not everyone does. It was not the military or the media outlet that was cheating it was just one producer in one situation and only a few people knew the truth.

    Not all news media is fake. I knew a reporter in Viet Nam and he was pretty cool. He believed in writing the story as it occurred, not embellishing it. He had some scruples as it was.

    Barry, we might have to abandon the "Golden Rule" in order to survive to practice it in the future. We won't put it aside forever, just long enough to change the hearts and minds of people -if, such a thing is even possible.

    Yes Barry, I'm doing OK. Going through some hard times, as people our age normally do. I hope you are doing well.
  • thumb
    May 30 2014: It is what it is. We must live with it until wholesale change of the human mind enables us to control our thoughts and actions. Then, we must reach an agreement among ourselves to remove violence from our lifestyle.

    The real sad story is: our technology will enable us to create the ultimate WMD, a fusion bomb or a powerful biological weapon. Such a device can enable a single individual to cause the extinction of the entire human race. The possibility is very real.

    While humans are different from one another, I believe we settle down into two major dynamic categories: those who are willing to incorporate change into their habits; and those who wish to remain relatively stagnate within their comfort zone. The former leads the latter by means of persuasion or fear.

    Perhaps the reason we have not heard from ET is because very few, if any, intelligent species make it beyond, a Class zero Civilization.

    An old Israeli adage comes to mind while thinking about your question: "If the Arabs lay down their weapons, there will be peace in the Middle East. If the Israelis lay down their weapons, there will be no more Israel."

    In a way, this is the real situation within which we all live on this planet. I can't think of a plan of action, other than the long process of educating the human Race to live together in peace and harmony, that will cause us to change and move forward towards a Class One Civilization. We would have to develop a process and force every individual to move through the door way forcing some to accept the transformation process. The problem is, such activities resemble the actions utilized by the Nazis during WWII. We would have to give up our individual rights and join the transforming solution -willingly or otherwise.
  • May 29 2014: I don't think doomsday scenarios are very realistic. Even in the worst case of an all-out nuclear war, where nuclear winter would bring on a new ice age and where masses of people would die of radiation and its after-effects, the complete extinction of humanity would be very unlikely. To assume that our modern weaponry could achieve annihilation on the order of an earth-shattering asteroid....well, that seems a little presumptuous to me. A war fought with every means available (chemical, biological, nuclear, etc.) would certainly annihilate what we know as civilization, but wiping out every single human being still seems unlikely.

    In answer to your question, is militarism an anachronism? No. As long as one group of human beings has borders with another group, there will always be fighting.
  • May 29 2014: Danny, great topic. I love depression.
    Pandora's Box has been opened. We are toast.
    Someone somewhere is going to bring a suitcase like container to Washington DC.
    Poof.

    There is no question for sane minds to consider.
    That is why the politicians are stealing us blind.
    They just want to get theirs' and get out.

    I live as far from Washington DC as I could get.

    Now I have to worry about the Diablo Nuke Plant 6 miles away as the crow flies.
    And, North Korea sending a lone bomber to about a thousand miles offshore
    with nuke cruise missiles to discharge.

    I should have moved to Mexico, but the Drug Wars scared me.
    Now the coastal Panga boats filled with drugs are taking over California.

    Canada is safer, but too wet and cold. And they don't like us.
    Some years back we stole their No.1 trading partner "Red" China.

    Did you enjoy that old Hollywood movie, "Ants"??? It depicted us all.
    It had a good ending, but I don't think we will.
    • Jun 2 2014: Sorry Frank, I didn't want to depress anyone. Just because that strategy is doomed, it doesn't mean we are. Replacing militarism is a simple software fix. For success, 'fight' is the wrong verb.
      • Jun 2 2014: Danny, just you and I. They will shut this down on June 10th.
        I noted much earlier that the comments were drying up.
        I've got 3 topics running right now. Not much response.
        I'm looking for another site, with hopefully some people
        who want to challenge the corruption of our government.
        Not conspiracy theorists, although those of the 1980's and
        1990's may ultimately be proven right. lol

        I was researching and someone actually put up some stats
        on Harvard Grads and their negative impact on Wall Street.

        If we could send them to the US Army as grunts for a couple
        of years, they might be able to deconstruct the whole thing.

        Never has a government been as successful as this one to
        collect taxes in amounts large enough to pay bank interest
        on monies borrowed to make never ending wars.

        For success, "Obama" is the wrong verb.
  • May 29 2014: In two weeks TED conversations will cease.
    We who have had so much fun writing one another will be no more.
    As bad as I feel. I need to find another avenue for straight talk.

    Anyone have any suggestions?
  • thumb
    May 29 2014: Besides the breakthroughs in devastating technology that is fully capable of destroying all of life as we know it, I honestly don't think that much has changed with militarism. Real or perceived, we always need an "enemy" (or scapegoat). In the case of the military-industrial complex, there is an enormous profit to be made off of conflict, which even further promotes the need for "enemies."

    On a positive note, since there isn't a profit to be made from the annihilation of humankind, it's a pretty safe bet that mutually-assured destruction keeps nations from going overboard.
  • thumb
    May 28 2014: Hi Again, Danny-

    Re my last, to show you all how insane the thought of prosecuting a modern war over the world's sea lanes is, here is a brief Youtube video of Iranian naval forces launching Shkval rocket torpedoes, which can be launched from submarines, small, fast and stealthy warships, planes and mobile shore batteries. Again- they are unstoppable.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBtgqK9gwdA
  • thumb
    May 28 2014: Hi, Danny-

    Here is a new megatrend for you re militarism: There will be no more overseas empire building by anyone anymore because the Russian-designed 230 mph Shkval torpedo has made warships and wartime naval convoys utterly obsolete.

    My brother served on the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy in 1975, tracking enemy submarines in the Med, and saw a Shkval (Squall) scream through his sonar buoy net so fast he couldn't even begin to get a fix on it. That was a non-steerable, first -generation Shkval, intended to carry a nuke warhead and vaporize a carrier, or turn its task force belly-up in shallow waters like the Persian Gulf, by creating a tidal wave.

    Now most world navies, including Iran's, have remotely steerable 3rd and 4th-generation versions of this torpedo. Here is an excerpt from a Live Leaks article on it:

    "Fired from standard 533mm torpedo tubes, Shkval has a range of about 7,500 yards. The weapon clears the tube at fifty knots, upon which its rocket fires, propelling the missile through the water at 360 kph [about 100 m/sec / 230 mph / 200-knots], three or four times as fast as conventional torpedoes. The solid-rocket propelled "torpedo" achieves high speeds by producing a high-pressure stream of bubbles from its nose and skin, which coats the torpedo in a thin layer of gas and forms a local "envelope" of supercavitating bubbles. Carrying a tactical nuclear warhead initiated by a timer, it would destroy the hostile submarine and the torpedo it fired. The Shkval high-speed underwater missile is guided by an auto-pilot rather than by a homing head as on most torpedoes.

    " There are no evident countermeasures to such a weapon, its employment could put adversary naval forces as a considerable disadvantage."

    Empire Game Over. Large future wars will be land wars like Russia occupying the Ukraine. The US Navy is half its former size, and no wonder - the life span of an aircraft carrier in a "hot" war is now less than an hour. In 1974 it was 48 hours.
  • May 28 2014: The problem is there are too many eyes today. Gandhi had an astute understanding of crowd dynamics. He was ahead of his time in that regard.

    Militarism has always adapted. I don't think it will be an anachronism until aggression is no longer an innate response to discord in our immediate environment (if you can't hold your temper in a contrary situation, why wouldn't that primal instinct be amplified into communal protectionism?)
  • May 19 2014: Bryan: Confuscius had a lot to say about how important it is that the meanings of words should not be tampered with. What you say sounds great, but your conclusions are not logical. You're making up your own language.
    And from your implications about the Prussians, it sounds like ...Intense dislike?! Not hate?
    • May 20 2014: No, you're making up your own little pseudo-language. You're driven by blind dogma and hatred, not logic or reason.
  • May 19 2014: I gather that you feel very strongly about what you say, but I don't see the evidence for it. We all hate to think that "Our Team" could do anything wrong, but that about "If it quacks like a Duck,..etc?" I have a Quaker background, and believe that Actions Speak Louder Than Words>
  • May 19 2014: Charles: I'm aware of the history of the US. One of my ancestors penned the Declaration of Independence. Your comment that only "uneducated" people think the US has any responsibility for the 2 wars is seriously wrong. A more accurate statement would be that EXACTLY the uneducated are the loudest flagwavers. To be fair, I was entirely sold on the official view of WW2, even before it started. ( I was 9 year old). It was only years later, when I found out more about it, that I concluded that the whole thing was an unnecessary fiasco, with few redeeming features. And that the Blame Game is totally inappropriate. I don't know of any major figure in the whole affair who did not say, years later "But we had No Choice!". That should tell anyone a lot about our state of civilization. Nothing important has changed since 1914.
    You might have mentioned that "Nazi" also includes the term "Socialist". But that doesn't make it Real.
    • May 20 2014: It's obvious that you're just an anti-American bigot with an axe to grind and no capacity for reason.
  • thumb
    May 19 2014: I think Martin's 100 year "shelf life" for humans is about right, and the list of Game Over scenarios is indeed a long one. Re humans in space:

    If we are so lethal to ourselves and to our beautiful blue planet, as we obviously are, do we have any right to spread our lethality elsewhere? Where I come from, we call such things as us "lethal viruses."

    The good news re that is humans are not evolved for space at all - skeletons are not only utterly useless in space, they are a heavy liability/drain on physical resources. The perfect Earthling for space travel would be an octopus with a genetically enhanced brain... or brains, since they have ten of them.

    The only way humans could travel long distances in space is as embryonic zygotes contained in radiation-proof cryogenic Thermos bottles. Robots would have to transport them, build a viable New Planet colony to survive in, and then nurture and raise the zygotes to adulthood.

    Let's hope the robots would do a better job of raising New Planet humans than our ancestors did. Perhaps by then they could genetically excise the "I, me, mine" left brain that has gotten us into so much trouble here. No too farfetched an idea -the left hemi may be an evolutionary parasite anyway: It develops much later than the holistic right brain in fetuses and until recently surgeons relieved those children under age 7 suffering from multiple daily epileptic seizures by excising about 80% of the left brain. So it is largely expendable, eh? Stem cells in the right hemi step up to the plate and take over left hemi functions.

    After a second cup of coffee I remembered rumors of genetic engineering going on in a secret underground base under Denver International Airport - skeletonless humanoids with big brains. But they ain't human. Here is the least hysterical link re that base that I could find:

    http://diaconspiracyfiles.com/2009/10/30/secret-alex-christopher-photos-from-beneath-denver-international-airport/
  • thumb
    May 19 2014: Absolutely an anachronism, it doesn't belong in its current form, it's current form 'the millet hairy in dust real complex' (if you plant seed that is hairy in harsh conditions, it will not grow), it is like a modern form of self mutilation in terms of the collective species head in time and space, there is no rational good to be obtained from human versus human, since, in the reality of the history of war we have never actually managed to wipe everyone out and yet the so called deterrent, the so called advanced technology does not work for anyone as a means and method of survival...who owns the copyright for what survival, should be to a species with one common and unique head in time, throughout all space, is my personal view, but, I am fairly primitive in my ability to think, yet, think is all I do, think in one capacity is all we are, and, this natural resource is unharnessed, unguided and completely lost in the dark!

    But, is it not in the depths of all darkness we actually begin to see the change in the idea behind 'Yes We Can'!, is this a crash and burn moment for humanity, can we change, before, one of us, figures out how to press all the right buttons in the correct order and sequence too crash and burn?

    Is it possible for one human to press all the right buttons in a synchronized temporal dynamic strategy, shut the curtains on life as you knew it...is security security, or, is security a game, with no real winners beside the share owners of the weapons class order, whose order is order, what is order, is it natural or contrived, are we broken pieces of an ancient puzzle gone wrong?

    Could you, should you have a right to press a button?

    Is this idea fit for purpose in the modern age of international rights of equal and common association, are we stupid?

    What is a weapon for, what should a weapon be for?

    Who should own the copyright for weapons development in a common age of existence, why should one part of existence be better than the next in change
  • May 18 2014: You raise some good points. I would have to say that voting as a stockholder in a corporation barely qualifies as voting, since the deck is stacked so definitiely against the "Individual". To follow out the thought , though, stockholders count,though only by money amounts, not as individuals. However, take the citizens of a nation, do they not count as "vested" in their country?. To call the results of a fair election as Mob Rule is not consistent with rationality, unless you believe that accumulated wealth actually makes one more "democratic"; it doesn't add up. I'm well aware , as were the Founders, of the great dangers of demogogery, but as Churchill said, the alternatives to democracy are Worse. Exceptions to that are scarce and short lived.
    I totally agree that Power corrupts, but I think that applies to every class of people, not just bureaucrats.
  • May 18 2014: Charles: by the way, while we are talking about corruptible human beings, is there any particular reason to trust those who run corporations, rather than those who run governments (they are so frequently the same people)? The key point would seem to be that Socialism implies that people should have a vote, whereas the Corporation could hardly be said to even approve of voting, much less doing it. See the history of Corp. board capture by the incumbents. Not a cheery story.
    • May 18 2014: shawn

      Implies is like hope. Where in the definition of socialism do you find a democratic process?
      I would take it that you define yourself as a socialist. Would I be accurate in that? Or are you like so many who refuse to take a stand on anything that they promote so that there is no responsibility?
      Democracy is not freedom. It is a majority or mob rule. That two of us should vote to, shall we say, dismiss shawn, who also has a vote, what happens to shawn? Democracy in action. No freedom for shawn by democratic vote.
      When the government controls the people via food stamps, welfare, grants or other means, would you call any vote here a free and unencumbered process?
      I will say that what we have today in America has nothing to do with the Constitution. With healthcare the government now, essentially, controls the entire economic structure of the nation. It would appear that you have your wish.
      To you point on corps voting, publicly traded corps have stockholders, they vote. Why should you vote in a corp if you are not vested, a stockholder?
      I am very familiar with corporations, their history, failings and successes. I founded two. There can be a 'bad' person who runs a corp and maybe a 'bad' corp, and there can be a bad corp who owns good politicians that have solicited bribes, but you can leave. But when a country turns from the freedom of, lets say, the Bill of Rights to something ruled, at best, by a mob where do you go? You could vote. I guess.
      You sound like a very young and altruistic person. That is not all bad, but do not underestimate the cliche, "Power corrupts"
  • May 18 2014: What you say is not inaccurate. The reason I say that "Socialism" is not an appropriate term for Kingdoms, dictatorships, etc, is simply that No part of their philosophy feels that "people " are more than cows to be milked. Whereas, in the History of Socialism, there is a great tradition that it must be "democratic" , or controlled by a democracy that actually represents people . and not in a coerced or fraudulent way. You can certainly say that human nature does not allow it to work, if you are pessimistic. But since humans invented this idea, and it is always popular, I don't think it will die out.
    Incidentally, it is just this point about elections being real that differentiates between Communists and Socialists. And of course, the point about just "who" owns land, oil, etc. is a key point about Socialists. They are like the native Indians, who thought that kind of "ownership" laughable. If you have been following the revelations about how a tiny fraction of our population "owns" the majority of the Wealth that our society (together) creates, you can see that it is unsustainable, and sel-fdestructive, even for those who sincerely wanted it to work. Our Founders were well aware of all this, though it was before Marx. See Jeffferson on how bad banks can be.
    • May 18 2014: shawn

      Where in the history of socialism is the great tradition of voting? What country made voting an integral part of the governmental process?
      • May 19 2014: It sounds as though you believe that a country starts out "socialist" , and later takes up the voting question. That is not at all its history, unless you believe that the Soviet Union was "socialist" . They were not , in any realistic way,beyond propaganda..
        In practice, Socialism is no older than the latter part of the Industrial Revolution, and developed as Policies of established political parties. The Nordic countries have always been in the lead in this. You might even count Germany . Bismark started a National Health Plan generations before other countries even considered it. The US still does not have one. Socialists won big in Britain after the Big Wars, I guess people blamed "Capitalism" for them. Not entirely unfair. The point is, Britain had voting many years before "socialism", and that has been true right up to the present day. Socialism is a political program affair, not a fundamental tenet of any society.
        • May 19 2014: Shawn

          I think our conversation has reached a point of no return.
          The country I referred to was the one you now live in--you know, individual freedom and free enterprise, the Constitution, George Washington, those guys, 1776..
          The only people who blame America for WWI, and WWII would be the uneducated.
          Do you have any idea what USSR stood for? Let me help you out. The Union of Soviet Socialists Republics.
          I would suggest that the next time you hunt and peck for facts make sure they apply. It also sounds as if you are a product of our educational system.
  • May 18 2014: I doubt it would leave the whole world gone. Perhaps all of humankind. But, the world is a fertile thing. It grows things....with, or without us. All proceeds naturally. Conscious evolution is a slooooowwwwwwwwww process. Quite painful at times.
  • May 18 2014: The "dog eat dog" attitude is still here and very evident in Countries policies and actions. They will use military to reach their goals.
    • May 19 2014: That's not militarism any more than being willing to put up with the government building and maintaining roads is full-blown Communism.
      • May 22 2014: Would you say then that Putin moving troops to the border of the Ukraine is not militarism?