News O’ye Worlde – Today I learnt and Thought
…about lots of things. Some have been bubbling under for a while, some have just popped into my head. In an atypical post I shall attempt to deal with real events in the real world…the news.
Yes that’s right. I just read the Guardian…and by lord I’m going to talk about it. Just you wait.
Not long to wait though…Yes.
Silly mood may damage the quality of this blog. Sozzle.
Anyway, before I start, I’d like to point out that I kind of prefer reading paper news than electronic (ie Interneight) news. When I’m in the right mood, flicking through the paper makes me look at lots of things other than what I might look at on the internet. On the web I tend to look for amusement and silliness. Occasionally stumbling upon controversy and badness in the world. In a newspaper, I notice more things. Even if I only half read an article, it might be something I’d never have thought to look for.The ‘traditional’ news media still have a place, which is to draw our attention to things we might not otherwise notice. Kind of what it’s always been about.
The internet kind of has the same remit, or at least it succeeds in doing that quite often (read a hell of a lot) but it is other things as well.
Neither can be trusted..really.
Anyway, First thing to wind me up was the news that our Fearless Leader Tony Blair is still a twat. He says that Flying is fine, we shouldn’t expect people to make personal sacrifices of things like long haul flights. He doesn’t even seem to expect people to carbon offset. Carbon offsetting (or whatever they call it) may not be the final solution to all this environmental jam, in the same way that David Cameron’s Wind turbine isn’t going to save the world, but to defend current levels of consumption on the basis of the fact that people won’t want to is silly.
Now, there’s definitely an argument that we don’t want to put people off being green, but we also need to make people realise that lots of the things we do actually have consequences.
Anyway, what struck me most was a line in the report saying that the PM said ‘Britain is 2% of all the world’s emissions. We shut down all of Britain’s emissions tomorrow – the growth of China will make up the difference within two years.’
So because the other children are stealing marbles we should be allowed to do it too.
The world really is just a giant playground filled with bullies and nerds. Some suffer, some do well.
Anyway, what really struck me about the thing with China is how connected it is to the whole Trident Re-armament thingy. Our country is planning on spending phenomenal amounts of money on building more nukes because it is important that we have an ‘independent deterrent’. (Blair’s speech here).
Now…we all know that I don’t pretend to know what I’m talking about. I never know what I’m talking about. But seriously…in what situation do nuclear weapons really help. The whole Mutually Assured Destruction makes little sense (Dr Strangelove anyone) anyway, but when there’s such an increase in proliferation it actually makes less sense. Sure a ‘rogue state’ could launch a nuke against someone, but it’s not going to be stopped by building more nukes. Defence systems that could destroy/stop nukes…that sounds good. But to assuming you’ve got a state insane enough to nuke someone…I don’t think the fact that more people (especially people who are enemies anyway) have nukes really helps. I mean…really..does it?
Bah…I’m not explaining well. Basically…I don’t think blowing shit up is a good way to stop people blowing things up. Sure…we’ve all read post apocalyptic stories…and they were cool. But no doubt there will always be some people who think that they could get away with a quick pre-emptive strike.
Retaliation will only lead to more retaliation. Nobody can win….Wargames shows us this…and I ALWAYS listen to a young Matthew Broderick. Always.
But then there’s the thing that reminds me of the environment.
It’s the old do as I say but not what I do. China has to sort out its emissions before we do because its bigger so they count more. Iran has to not have any hope of having nuclear weapons but we can have as many as we want.
And nobody mention whether Israel has proliferated, because they are on ‘our’ side…even if they’re breaking international agreements in so doing.
It’s all so bloody childish and stupid.
If we don’t renew Trident, then we will have a much smaller range of nuclear threat…but I think we will still have a smaller nuclear threat. So it’s not even disarming…its just not rearming. (I may be wrong). Either way…we should bloody well reduce what we own. We don’t need those nukes and the money this is going to cost runs to billions. Actually..lots of billions. If we didn’t do this we could afford to do many other great things. Reducing emissions maybe, sorting out our health service…or even just give it to poor people.
Anything that would actually help the world through pleasantness…sacrifice of our weapons that are actually just fear.
The whole concept rests on fear.
We seem to think it’s appropriate to wage ‘war on terror’ using fear.
Weird weird Weird.
Ok, I’ve got to go to T’ai Chi now…so I can’t finish this yet…but that’s enough for now.
Thoughts?
Welcome to the wondersous world of International Relations. I study this for, like, my degree. :D
Speaking of which,
*goes back to hack out some more essay*
Justin
9 January 2007
Um–China should sort out its environmental issues because what it’s putting its own people through wouldn’t be tolerated in a civilised country.
Rivers flowing black with garbage leachate, rice paddies that won’t produce because they’re saturated with slurry. Kids tearing open copper lines and inhaling the fumes from the burning plastic casing, ten hours a day.
England was sooty black and sulphur yellow for a long time, and a lot of people died before anyone paid the slightest bit of notice. Now that people know better and the information has been thoroughly disemminated to the world, the Chinese behave as though they’ve never heard it.
We’re not talking about stifling growth, just shaving it from say, nine percent to eight or seven. China builds a coal-fired powerplant every couple of months–without the clean coal technologies that would be so easy to implement. Why?
Of course here in the West, if someone tries that there’s a mechanism called free speech to allow people to oppose the government’s wishes. Or at least be heard opposing them. Try that in Tienammen Square.
As for Iran and nukes–I think George W. Bush is an unstable, egotistical crackhead. But I’d rather see him in charge of a nuclear arsenal than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It’s sheer misery that we have an apocalyptic evangelical Christian @$$#0|3 and an apocalyptic evangelical Muslim @$$#0|3 on the thrones of those particular countries at this particular moment in history.
I really don’t want Canada to start mining our own uranium for that particular purpose, but given the histories of Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea especially, I occasionally second-guess myself on that.
Metro
9 January 2007
Justin, feel free to let me know when I’m completely missing the point then. I’m hoping to get ‘guest writers’ to write me stuff that I can add thoughts to…that way there might be some genuinely interesting stuff on here for once.
Metters,
You’re certainly right about China….I just don’t like the idea of saying its okay for us not to bother because China is much worse than us….it’s just passing on the blame.
As for the nukes…I agree that I don’t want Ahmadinejad to get nukes…but then..I don’t want anyone to have them. Surely unless people start downgrading the numbers of weapons they have then the number of nations with nuclear weapons (and of course the number of weapons) is going to increase. This can only be a bad thing. At least how I see things. If anyone launches…then lots of people are going to launch. Having more weapons doesn’t really make the outlook better. If I was in charge of Britain, then I’d start a unilateral disarmament programme. If we get nuked, then we’re screwed whatever. The money could be better spend on actual defence against nuclear attack…or on improvements to the worlds social structure (home and away) that might make wars less necessary.
Having said that….I’m wrong about most things…so it is for the best that I’m not in charge.
Alabaster Crippens
9 January 2007
No, no–I agree that I’d prefer no-one to have nuclear weapons. But hope, alas, does not make the reality.
If Iran and North Korea pursue atomic weapons, what choice do we have? There’s no defence against ballistic nuclear missiles, no matter what delusions George W. may be under.
The best alternative would be enforcing the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. But America, a key member of that deal, while advocating sanctions against places that “destabilize” their regions by seeking nuclear tech, has encouraged and actually signed a pact with, India. That would be the state that has an ongoing blood fued with its neighbour and violated its obligations under the NPT to produce its own atom bomb.
The US also pulled out of its various disarming obligations when it proposed the new “missile defence shield”–a piece of science fiction more fit for Hollywood than Washington.
In short, everyone who can seems to be stocking up. Speaking as an advocate of disarmament in a non-nuclear armed country, I am beginning to feel, in the words of Tom Lehrer “like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis”.
Metro
10 January 2007
As you point out it is far too late to save the concept of Non-proliferation. Perhaps it’s a bit of a fantasy to hope that less nuclear weapons on our side would mean less elsewhere. In fact…I reckon a lack of nukes (theoretically) makes you less likely to be a direct target. In fact…the targeted countries are more likely to be the neighbouring countries of the ones with the nukes (unless its an old school super power in which case firing is unlikely). I don’t see how launching more nukes into that mess is going to be good. Collateral damage is uncontrollable and massive (think winds and Chernobyl)…you can’t have a controlled nuclear attack.
Nobody should realistically think that its a good idea to use nukes…the deterrent factor only makes sense in a cold war style…two massive powers.
To be honest…I’d like to move to Canada…or one of the tiny little fragments of world still not in range of someone’s nukes.
As for Star Wars…we all know that’s a fantasy, like you say..there are no ways of stopping nukes….I don’t think building more will stop them (I’m repeating myself now.
It just seems ridiculous to spend so much time criticising Saddam for WMD’s (that he almost certainly didn’t have) and blowing them out of proportion, then criticising everyone else for building them…when WE are building them. Non-proliferation would be close to ideal…full scale disarmament better.
Both are incredibly unlikely.
This is why I wish I didn’t live in the real world.
Alabaster Crippens
10 January 2007
Oh…and I like Randy Newman’s take….’Let’s drop the big one there’s be no one left to blame us’
Alabaster Crippens
10 January 2007
In the twenty-first century, it is unlikely *nation-state* is going to use a nuclear bomb in any circumstances other than self-defense. The backlash would be hideous. Basically, it’s a security blanket; a waste of money that makes people feel safe. Equally, non-proliferation is never going to happen. The main thing we should be concerned about, in nuclear terms, is terroristic nuclear attacks with so-called ‘dirty bombs’. Plus, the existing nuclear regime creates jobs, and keeps scientists and so forth off the streets.
Star Wars isn’t about stopping nukes. It’s about blowing nukes up BEFORE they hit what is, presumably, a civilian target.
China isn’t *that* bad for environmental initiatives, btw. It’s not as though they are ignoring the drawbacks of rapid industrialisation outright. I mean, we were allowed to go through a period of intense industrialisation before it was fashionable to think about the environment, denying them the same right seems just as hypocritical as criticising Saddam for WMDs. Of course, things are going to get shitty, but it’ll take that shittyness to stimulate action.
Justin
10 January 2007
J:
Blowing nukes up before hitting target is what I meant by ’stopping’. The idea remains silly by all reasonable reports that I’ve heard. Your security blanket point is the point I’m trying to make. If the non-proliferation pacts had been properly maintained we might not be in such a bad situation. Plus we could actually not look like hypocrites when declaring war on people for supposedly having weapons of mass destruction.
Terrorists with bombs aren’t going to be scared of nukes. They can hide…that’s the beauty of a cell based network of independent units (beauty is probably not the most appropriate word). Hence building more nukes seems totally unnecessary.
What you say about China is exactly the comparison I was trying to draw.
(and are you going to make it next Sunday…not this Sunday…next)
Alabaster Crippens
11 January 2007
(I’m not sure, as of yet. Might have to give it a miss in favour of another evening of pubbing at some point the week after. Would you be up for that?)
Justin
11 January 2007
(Let’s be realistic here…I’m always up for an evening of pubbing. As long as I’m not working..in which case I’ll have to wait till after)
Alabaster Crippens
11 January 2007
Justin:
I have to disagree with you on nukes in the hands of certain states. It is possible that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may not have the power to initiate a launch, but Kim Jong Il probably can. For that matter, what happens when General-President Pervez Musharraf finally dies and they have to appoint someone to run Pakistan?
The idea that “wiser heads” will prevail should, given history, terrify wiser heads everywhere (yours and mine, f’rinstance).
Alabaster:
Star Wars died and was replaced with the “Missile Defence Shield” concept. The trouble is that, given a ballistic target, and assuming that target is seen coming–that is, it’s not jinking about “under the radar”–and finally, given that it’s got a great big transponder on it screaming “Here I am! Come and get me!”, the current model manages to hit–not “disarm”, not “render harmless”, just “hit” that incoming little bogey about 33-to-50 percent of the time.
And Justin, it seems to me that most military planning is about preserving your fighting ability, so civillian targets are less likely to be defended by such expensive technology than say, missile sites.
As for China–Just because “we” were stupid and wiped out the dodo, they should be allowed to wipe out the Yangtze River dolphin, for example? News this week suggests the last one has already become cat food.
Suggesting that countries be allowed to make their own “mistakes” in the interest of fairness spits in the face of science. Especially when science promises so much better for comparitively low cost.
The point is, the nations of the world who wish to pretend to civilization–including China–cannot say they don’t know better. That includes us, of course. But we’re at least dragging our feet in the right direction. China hasn’t been.
Metro
12 January 2007