THE DANGERS THAT COULD LIE AHEAD

THE CONSEQUENT RISK TO MANKIND

The worst of all future possibilities that might befall man would be a global war.  At this point in time, too many nations possess nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and chemical weapons.  As a result, warfare has come to represent grave danger to more than military personnel.  Civilian morale, health, and efficiency have come to be subjects of attack by foreign enemies.  And whole societies are, and will continue to be, targeted for annihilation during future conflicts.  It is consequently rather obvious that World War III, when and if it should occur, will likely end in the destruction of the majority, if not all, of the human race.

 We are faced with a steadily increasing risk of such a world catastrophe taking place, on account of the continuing preoccupation on the part of nations with the maintenance of arms and armies for their respective interests, and for defense against one another.  Moreover, we lack an effective world machinery to settle international disputes by peaceful, but enforceable, means.

During the Cold War, the nuclear arms race likely never turned into actual warfare due to a factor termed "mutual assured destruction":  a realization by both sides that their respective arsenals were capable of destroying each other, as well as the rest of the world, several times over.  Future arms races will likely be subject to these considerations as well.  However, they will likely have expanded to comprise additional potential nightmares, including biological and chemical agents, as well as genetics, nanotechnology, robotics, and other such concepts.  The development and stockpiling of such new forms of weaponry would be even more potentially hazardous than the old nuclear arms races, by reason of the fact that a single error or mishap could possibly unleash a destructive force upon the world that might be impossible to reverse or correct.  Thus, the end of the world might truly be upon us in the not too distant future.  Considerations such as these recently prompted a body of American Roman Catholic Bishops to issue a pastoral letter entitled "The Challenge of P:eace...," in which we are warned that ours is "the first generation since Genesis with the power to virtually destroy God's creation."

                                                              * * * * *

It is particularly dismaying to note that the Middle East represents one of the world's most formidable concentrations of weapons, hostility, and violence.  In addition, the Middle East constitutes a region wherein religious fundamentalism has spawned enormous amounts of animosity toward the West in many quarters.  This hatred has given rise to numerous acts of violence, including hijackings, bombings, and other kinds of explosive violence throughout the world; and has culminated, to date, in the September 11, 2001 attacks upon the United States.

Moreover, in 2001, al Qaeda announced they were seeking nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons for the purpose of carrying out further attacks.  Threats have been voiced concerning New York City's bridges and tunnels, as well as the U.N. Building, and the White House.  Additional cause for concern resides in the fact that today's scientific advances have made it possible for a small group--or even a single deranged individual--in possession of the appropriate knowledge and materials, to effectuate widespread devastation.

Chemical weapons are an ideal choice for terrorists, in that they are cheap, their makings are readily accessible, they are easy to transport, and they are easily produced by someone with knowledge of chemistry. 

It seems that the only way to confront the antagonisms that have emanated from this region is to identify and deal with the sources thereof.  A primary source appears to have been the establishment and presence of an Israeli nation in the region, and the resultant conflict with neighboring nations and peoples.  The Palestinians' opposition to the presence of an Israeli nation, as well as their desire for an independent state of their own, was an original epicenter of much of the conflict, until it spread to engulf additional neighboring people and states.  Sympathy for the Palestinian position, as well as resentment toward the apparent favor for Israel on the part of the United States and other Western nations, has motivated a large part, if not originally all, of the hatred that has resulted in, among other things, today's malady that is terrorism.  It is noteworthy to realize that such animosity toward the West in general, and terrorist organizations and attacks in particular, were rare, if at all extant, prior to the establishment of the state of Israel. 
 
It is not my opinion that any particular sovereign state--including Israel and/or Palestine--should or should not, of itself, exist.  Rather, it is my opinion that if no sovereign states existed--that if, instead, everyone simply resided where they wanted, with and among whom they wanted, and away from and avoiding whomsoever they so desired--but governed by a single worldwide authority, whose purpose and functions were solely to promote the safety and welfare of all--many of these grievances would be automatically neutralized, and dissolve away.

I advocate private ownership of real property.  And so, individuals, corporations, and any and all other types of entities would simply buy and sell what they pleased, where they pleased, and when they pleased--subject, of course, to standards of law governing real property, and reasonable government regulations, such as zoning, eminent domain, etc., directed toward the safety and benefit of all people.

Without a state of Israel, there would be no Israeli troops at border check-points--for there would be no national armies and no national borders.  On the other hand, there would be a strong police presence, if and as needed, should neighbors anywhere resort to expressing disapproval, in an unlawful manner, of neighbors living within their neighborhood or in their vicinity.  Moreover, in such a world, Palestinians, Israelis, and everyone else, would be entitled to move and live anywhere.  Perhaps many Palestinians would move to Europe or the Americas.  There too, they would be entitled to reside among their European or American neighbors, without committing or enduring criminal expressions of objection.

The same would apply to any and all places on earth where there is currently agitation and hostility between groups of people living within the same national borders.  To remove the "national sovereignty" element, via the abandonment of all such national state concepts, would  possibly defuse many of these conflicts, and reduce them to the status of neighborhood discord among people of different backgrounds residing in the same or adjacent geographic areas.  And each side would not need bands of militants, or armies, to demonstrate and attempt to promote their respective interests.  On the other hand, unlawful efforts to demonstrate or to attempt to promote group A's dislike for group B, or to illegally snatch a geographic area owned by members of group B, would be considered criminal activity, and dealt with as such by forces of the world governing entity.

                                                            * * * * *



THE OBJECTIVE

The objective, in every instance, is simply to promote an atmosphere of people residing together--but nevertheless where they want, and among whom they want--in peace (or at least without committing or enduring unlawful violence to or from their neighbors).  It becomes reduced to the status of the racial problems that arose in many parts of the United States during the 1960s, as the concept of equal entitlement for all Americans regarding education, employment, and residence changed for the better.  If America's blacks and whites had been two separate national entities, there would have been a black army and a whit army; and possibly a war between black America and white America, during which many innocent blacks and whites would have been killed and injured.  [Admittedly, there was some rioting, and a comparatively small number of casualties; but there certainly could be no comparison to the death and damage that took place during our recent wars.]

This may sound "futuristic," or like pages from a science-fiction novel.  But it is coming.  Little by little, as mankind evolves, sociologically along with our evolution in every other aspect, this will come to pass.  A view of history during the past ten thousand years clearly demonstrates this progression--from separateness toward unity.  But it seems important in this case to "rush" evolution along.  For without conscious and meaningful actions to arrive at a state of societal unity, there is a real danger--in fact a likelihood--that mankind will have obliterated himself as a result of some conflict, or terrorism, or perhaps some accident that takes place while a military or terrorist group seeks to expand or implrove its "stockpile," before it takes place "naturally."

The choice is ours.  Even if readers of this can console themselves with a belief that the likelihood that any of these tragedies actually occuring is slim, Pascal's Prop;osition (that it is wise to take steps to avoid infinitely horrid consequences, even if their likelihood be tiny) would still counsel us to take care to do what we can to avoid them.

In Our Final Hour, Martin Rees submits that the gravity of a threat is its magnitude multiplied by its probability.  I suggest that the gravity of the possibilities set forth above and during the last couple of days are indeed extreme; and that the possibility regarding some of them, on a scale of one to ten, is at least a "five."

Professor Rees's conviction that the odds for human survival to the end of the twenty first century are no better than "fifty-fifty" is unsettling and frightful.  Treaties, agreements, bans, and moratoria mean well--but they are incapable of effective enforcement worldwide for an unlimited amount of time.  Eventually, subsequent events cause treaties to become distasteful, or burdensome, or obsolete; agreements come to stand in the way of newer, more necessary agreements and agendas; while bans and moratoria become passe` and unenforceable.

The only effective way to deal with a truly dangerously threatening situation is to neutralize it--that is, to cause it to no longer exist, or need to exist.  It is my object to implant the concept in a few--or, hopefully, many--that mankind's logical next step, as well as our only hope, lies in abandonment of the present condition of our world, wherein national interests, concerns, and conflicts govern our ominous destiny.

                                                      * * * * *

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT--HERE--OR VIA E-MAI, AT oneworld@tampabay.rr.com