The Cobalt Bomb

Erik has convinced me that there were reasons why the Nazis chose NOT to use their weapons of mass destruction, and American colonists chose NOT to bring to total extinction all of the Native American Indian tribes. What is not CLEAR to me is 1.) the exact motives why the option of total extermination was not chosen, 2.) whether total widespread genocide could EVER seem like the lesser of evils (or whether the world will always find a reason to avoid genocide.

I did some more searching on the inventor of the Neutron bomb and realized that the Vietnam war might have been won very easily by a methodical use of neutron bombs on the Vietcong, cleansing vast areas of jungle of all life forms. Reagan was impressed enough by the potential of neutron bombs to build an arsenal and it was only the objection of European allies which persuaded Reagan to stock them only in America (and they were subsequently dismantled.)

My question is, very simply, WOULD THERE EVER COME A TIME, after say 100 years of suicide bombings, where the economies of the free secular powers would be so strained that they would simply see mass genocide of all Islamic societies as the lesser of two evils (whether by nerve gas or by neutron bombs) and such a monstrous act would be justified by the hope of 1000 years of peace and prosperity by the more ideologically unified secular peoples who would replace the extinct cultures. Of course it is very possible that any culture, any ideology might within a few hundred years morph some deviant opposition which would resort to guerrilla suicide bomber tactics and the problem would start all over again.

I did also search COBALT BOMB in response to Vikilani’s suggestion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_bomb

Such a bomb, if of sufficient size, could destroy all life on the planet. I asked myself what the motive would be to destroy all life on earth. We have already seen that there are those willing to become suicide bombers or kamakazi and sacrifice their own life for the sake of some noble principle or some reward in a hypothetical future life of paradise.
Perhaps some religion would come to interpret the extinction of all life by a cobalt bomb as the fulfillment of a religious belief that an apocalypse is necessary to destroy all earthly wickedness so that a resurrection and a new World Order would come to pass. Or perhaps the scheme would be that time capsules immune to the radiation would be set to reseed life from genetic encoded seeds frozen. Or perhaps a sufficient colony might be established on Mars and the plot would be to cleanse the Earth of its diversity (which fuels adversity) and then repopulate with a species conditioned to act only for the harmony of the common good. These all sound like fantastic speculations and yet we know that suicide bombers and end of world theologies already exist.

++++

Good point, Erik, but there is always a first time for everything.

America has pioneered the development of WMD. Every nuclear sub has MORE fire power than all 5 years of World War II both sides COMBINED. Israel is surrounded by nations who believe that Israel should not exist. America believes that it is forever bound up with the existence of Israel. Pakistan and Iran have WMD and see the West as satanic.

The Cuban missile crises is perhaps the closest the World has come to an actual nuclear holocaust.

Stop and think of all the suffering and death during the years of the Vietnam war and all for nothing since Vietnam is Communist today. Maiming and fatality with no positive results is inhumane. A few weeks of total annihilation is humane and merciful compared to these years of pointless warfare leaving amputees and paraplegics in its wake.

Erik, you are correct that up until now, for various and sundry reasons, mankind has chosen NOT to seek total destruction of ethnic cleansing as an option. BUT past performance is no guarantee of future performance as those investment brochures always warn.

The technology exists for genocide. The idea to do it is actively discussed by many out in the open including Republican congressman Tom Tancredo who suggested nuking the Kaaba in Mecca. I see the destruction of the Kaaba as comparable to the Roman destruction of Judaism’s one and only Temple. Once the temple was destroyed, Judaism was forced to transform itself radically. Once the Kaaba is destroyed then the 5th pillar of Islam, the Hajj pilgrimage, would be forever destroyed and Islam would be forced to change in some fashion and also to concede that the tenets of Islam are not eternal and immutable.

We may even liken genocide to the irreversible destruction of the ecosystem. We have not hesitated to jeopardize our own planet’s ecosystem for the sake of short term gains. So why would we one day hesitate to prune the vineyard?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: