[extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies

Robert J. Bradbury bradbury at aeiveos.com
Thu Jun 24 18:50:57 UTC 2004


Ok, [1] looks to be interesting as a publication by someone
from inside the CIA as an "anonymous" author.

Basic contention the "war on terrorism" is failing because
we (in the west) do not recognize that it is a war by a
"worldwide Islamic insurgency".  (This echos some of the
comments by Friedman in the NY Times.)

Now I know some of you are going to dislike the following
(probably intensely) so do not bother to send the list
(or myself) hate mail for bringing it up.  It is my job
(IMO) to think outside the box.

One currently sees people being kidnapped and beheaded,
suicide bombings, etc. in the name of either various
religions, political causes related to religions
(e.g. Sunni vs. Shiite, Jews vs. Palestinians) or
race/tribe (Sudan: Arabs (Janjaweed) massacre/rape black
Africans in Darfur, Rawanda, etc.)

Proposed utilitarian solution: eliminate the points for
discussion.

e.g. For Muslim radicals:
Nuke Medina, Messina, Faluja and Najaf.
e.g. For Jews & Palestinians:
Nuke Jerusalem.
e.g. For Sudan
Nuke the city with the greatest population of prejudiced Arabs.

No debate, no long drawn out discussions, no attempting to
come to terms.  Its either "Stop the violence or suffer
the consequences".  (And in this case the group with the
bigger stick wins).

Of course, this could be done "creatively" so as to
minimize cost in terms of human lives (i.e. you drop
a nuke in a non-populated zone 100 miles from the
target a few weeks in advance of date one drops it on
the target).  But there are advantages and disadvantages
to this approach.

Now, I don't want to see a long drawn out discussion as to
why this is wrong.  It is fundamentally the problem that
parents must deal with when their children are behaving in a
way that is either harmful to themselves or harmful to others.
If it is clear that the problem cannot be corrected through
normal methods of feedback is it necessary to eliminate the
causes for the misbehavior or make it clear that the
consequences for misbehavior will be very severe.

In particular I would like to see reasoned and/or analytical
arguments that above approach would or would not result in
a) A greater loss of humanity than proceeding along the path
   we are currently on (some convoluted combination of
   negotiation and intervention on a case by case basis where
   the criteria [depending upon the country] seem to be highly
   variable.]
b) Provide the most rapid path to a posthuman/transhuman world.
   [In particular I am thinking along the lines of the simple
   elimination of humans that cannot engage in rational thought.
   Harsh I know.  Biased and prejudicial I know.  In contrast to
   my normal perspective that every human has the possibility of
   improving themselves *I KNOW*.]

*But* I am interested in the distinct analytical problem of
the mess the world is now in and how to solve it at the lowest
cost (in life, future economic development, quality of life,
moral conscience, take your pick...).

Robert

1. Imperial Hubris, "anonymous",
   http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=E665EB24-F443-469B-AAF2E63D69FADB40
or
   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1574888498/





More information about the extropy-chat mailing list