The idea of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has been a popular military strategy propagated by countries that are enamored with the idea of attaining global supremacy and dominance. This idea is based on the notion that among opposing countries, each regime will pursue an arms race in the interest of 'self-preservation', against all other sets of aggressive, hostile countries. Supposedly, an eventual equilibrium will be achieved when each country runs out of resources to build weapons of mass destruction (WMD) — upon having amassed such a large stock-pile of radiological, biochemical, and computerized weaponry that the whole world can be demolished multiple times over, by those weapons. That presumptive equilibrium hasn't been achieved yet.
As of July-2024, it doesn't seem like any so-called 'super power' has reached even a nominal level of being sated, where the leaders of any alliance of powerful-nations would feel sufficiently well off and secure, and consequently, not test any other country's capabilities for causing instantaneous human extinction.
So, can diplomacy come to the rescue where martial escapades of various countries seem to be taking humanity to nowhere except, directly towards oblivion?
Within diplomatic meetings, countries like USA employ typical forms of double-speak and wordplay, against island nations and underdeveloped countries; whereby, terrorizing acts of blackmail via the use of menacing weaponry is categorized by heavily industrialized countries as 'projection of power.' This form of blackmail is usually along the lines of, "obey our dictum and remain a vassal state, or else face the consequences of being ostracized and then annihilated by our bloc." In all of such geopolitical precariousness, countries that do not have advanced WMD continue to suffer the consequences of daily extortion via lethal and destructive threats, which are continuously posed by industrialized nations that do possess a large stock-pile of WMD, or other extraordinary weapons.
Modern history holds testament that those cut-throat, international bandits with 'sovereignty', behave as if they are somehow awe inspiring, merely because of their intent and ability to deploy their extraordinary weapons as well as atrociously destructive powers, upon meek nations. They even sometimes like to flaunt their industrial, political, and socio-economic destructive powers as:
-
"liberation of poor and oppressed people under autocracy, towards protection of freedom, civil liberties, human rights, and democracy"; or,
-
"creative destruction"; or even,
-
"evolutionary disruption of stolid economies."
The culture of pillaging developing countries using patronizing and patrolling military forces, that are equipped with WMD, or other terrorizing weapons, has been normalized as, "a stabilizing geopolitical force exerted by imperial lordships for the betterment of humankind, particularly for the preservation of global peace and order." Such absurd rationales have been evangelized by the likes of puritanical Jesuit missionaries and western expeditionary forces, throughout the world, for centuries. This is the manner in which the avarice and fiendishness, of imperialism and colonialism, still finds a convenient excuse to usurp legitimacy via bogus religiosity, and sadistically plunderous military strategies.
It is plainly evident that industrialized nations that have continued to extensively pollute the Earth, are a much worse threat to the entire human ecology than any developing country, or any impoverished island nations from the Indo-Pacific and the Atlantic regions of the world. Genuinely peaceful and conscientious nations pursue a policy of ecological sustainability, that nourishes humanity, and which necessarily avoids the destruction of indigenous heritage as well as natural environments. But, pursuit of such ideals is branded as childish naivety, infirmity, irrationality, and even derangement, by imperialists who continue to exert overwhelming violence against all species, in order to assert their supremacy and dominance. This imbalance of power between countries that do possess WMD along with other industrial scale weaponry, versus those that do not, is simply disgusting and unacceptable.
Therefore, it is only fair that power dynamics among the world's nations be re-balanced, so that even non-nuclear states can have every basis, opportunity, and all the freedom in the universe to obliterate arbitrary portions of industrialized countries that pose any kind of a threat, to their otherwise peaceful ways of living and coexistence.
The following hypothetical scenarios, or thought experiments, are presented for the sake of evaluating a potential future, where any state or non-state actor can acquire sufficient means to cause, 'mutually assured destruction', with respect to any destructive and lethal countries in North America, UK, Western Europe, the Middle-East, Mediterranean coastal regions, and Eastern Asia.
For the sake of discussion, let's assume for now that a threat actor from a developing country, let's just choose Honduras as an example... so, a threat actor from Honduras makes their way to a national park in North America, who then sets fire to a large swath of pine tree forests.
In this 'thought experiment', the key idea has to do with America's and Europe's officially, and publicly espoused views of countries like El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Venezuela, Cuba, Albania, Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Azerbaijan, Sierra Leon, Mali, Nigeria, Ghana, Madagascar, Philippines, North Korea, or New Guinea.
Central and South American countries, East European, Middle-East Asian and Central Asian ones, as well as many South-East Asian, Islander, and African nations of the world are portrayed by various Western Media Outlets as vile, non-democratic, sickly runts that deserve to be subdued, and put down using every form of violence by "developed countries." Centuries of such deliberately antagonizing, derogatory, and hostile narratives that have settled into the psyche of nations with an Atlantic coastline, are obviously detrimental to geopolitical stability, in every part of the world. Worse, such views propagated in the modern era by NATO allies against — Latin, Middle-Eastern, East European, South and South-East Asian, as well as African countries — are contrary to all notions of social equality, and are entirely deleterious to the preservation of basic human rights.
So, how difficult could it be for a threat actor from any of those antagonized countries to commit a series of arson, each year, in any of the thousands of hectares of national parks in North America or the UK, and then get away with it? Of course, such a bad actor getting away with arson in either dead or alive form, after igniting extensive wildfires, would be immaterial compared to the damage done by their simplistic attack vectors.
Comparatively, instead of directly committing arson, various corporate entities from North America and Europe, have already caused extensive and permanent damage to wildlife sanctuaries throughout the world via their ongoing, 'legal and rightful', commercial or industrial activities. So, how easy would it be for a security agency to monitor a patch of forestry, or to fight wildfires that may have been caused by commercial or industrial activities of corporate entities? Those entities most certainly weren't trying to deliberately commit arson and ecological degradation with their slash-and-burn tactics, were they?
North America's track record for the past century indicates that a minuscule and insufficient amount of Canada's and America's yearly national budget, is allocated to management of wildlife and forestry. It is also clear that none of the agencies concerned with national security, even in countries like the US or Canada, have the required skills and resources to defend against scorched-earth-strategies.
Plus, such strategies involving widespread devastation via uncontrollable fires were developed, and have been demonstrated by, Western armed forces during each of their military campaigns in various parts of the world, since the early nineteen-fifties. More specifically, in the current day and age, NATO's elite armed force units are equipped with the greatest capabilities in the world, for exerting lethal and destructive tactics. But, those very same units are not the ones any person would call upon, for providing active support in any type of "search and rescue missions" during natural calamities or industrial accidents. The ones who do show up and stay for rescuing or rebuilding efforts, after a calamity, are typically under-equipped volunteers and underfunded non-government organizations.
In any case, Europe is about to wake up to the complete and thorough realization that, NATO is only designed to prevent Europe from having a proper military navy, a navy which shouldn't otherwise have to be subservient to British or American naval commanders. The European Union (EU), with an independent naval fleet, could have better decided what portion of its efforts are to be directed towards earning the ire of other nations through subversive or invasive missions, versus restorative missions to earn the genuine gratitude and respect of nations that are constantly exposed to the perils of the shores and the seas of this world.
As such, isn't it tragic, and unfortunate, that the best and brightest of a nation who are given maximum leeway along with greatest access to tax-payer money, happen to use all of that talent and resource for destruction, instead of directly working towards rehabilitation or rejuvenation of humanity.
You see, destruction is easy, because "weaponization" of a simple matchstick within parched woodlands can be trivially achieved by any assailant.
Worse, even in the event of an actual assault by a threat actor who uses arson as a means for destruction of lives and properties, the chores of investigating a scene in the aftermath of a large-scale fire, leads to infinitely many questions that cast doubt on the causal factors of the calamitous event. This issue persists among all countries of the world, and not only within the ones like the US or Canada. For example, in the aftermath of a forest fire, an investigative team has to firstly rule out natural causes like geological activities, lightning from storms, and even stray meteors from outer space. Then the chore of ruling out accidental ignition due to camp-fires, or carelessness of electrical power distribution companies has to be completed. Such investigations take years if not decades even when multiple teams investigate different angles of a large-scale tragedy, in parallel.
The issues pertaining to constrained human resources, that inevitably become a hindrance in being able to detect, prevent, or investigate a tragedy like wildfires, is perhaps the crux of this thought experiment about forest fires ignited due to arson. Having well-educated, well-equipped, appropriately trained, and properly funded human resources, who can succeed in their job of preserving and managing natural habitats, for the good of humankind, is not at all a primary concern for influential law makers, worldly thought leaders, and political bureaus of any industrialized or industrializing country.
For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) might be among the most deliberately handicapped, and powerless institutions of the US government. Such agencies were deliberately handicapped and made powerless by those who have been able to profit greatly, by allowing destructive as well as polluting corporations to reign free, with as little regulatory oversight as possible. And in times of crisis due to calamities, what better consolation can be given to grieving persons than tossing a roll of toilet paper at suffering people, and then simply chalking it all up to, "tough luck."
For sure, the above type of exposition through a simple thought experiment, highlights how non-nuclear methods can readily produce a re-balancing of powers that can ensure mutual destruction in a seemingly whole new way; even though the task of defoliating trees using: slash-and-burn techniques, radiological weapons, or biochemicals, is an age-old tactic in warfare.
If one would like to study the effects of asphyxiation on nerve cells called gray and white-matter, they wouldn't need to choke a person or an animal to death, to then extract the brain of the asphyxiated being, freeze the brain tissue, and later study thin slices of that frozen tissue under a microscope. The effects of asphyxiation on brain cells can also be recreated by damaging the astrocytes with thallium.
Additionally, nerve cells can be directly subdued with tiny doses of lithium, to prevent them from functioning properly, leading to subtle and pernicious forms of retardation in human beings and other animals.
It shouldn't come as a surprise that indigenous people, the infirm, soldiers, and the incarcerated have been, and are being experimented on, by research groups of various pharmaceutical companies and of military corps in several countries, for developing, promoting, and propagating certain lithium salts as brand-named, patented, 'therapeutic drugs.'
"A filthy scumbag", "a recalcitrant", or "a deranged waywardly person", 'corrected or cured' by neuro-suppressive drugs, becomes very docile, obedient, and pliable.
It's just that, there honestly is no proper and scientifically accurate way to distinguish if the so-called corrective measure or cure, especially by using lithium, doesn't merely cause or produce the effects of chemical lobotomy, at a cellular level.
You see, lithium and magnesium ions can get stuck in potassium gates of nerve cells. This prevents the potassium gates, that is, the potassium ion exchange pumps in nerve cells, from creating appropriate chemical balance across the neuron via unhindered osmosis. That in turn shuts the sodium pumps of the nerve cells, which then prevents conduction of electro-chemical signaling along the axon of the nerve. After a sufficient duration of time, the hindered cellular tissue decays and dies. The death of a cluster of nerve cells in the brain also reduces the "ephaptic coupling" of other nerve bundles, leading to: sluggish thoughts, and loss in control of motor functions, as well as autonomic neuropathy.
So whether someone wants to use fruit flies, zebra-fish, mice, chicken, chimpanzees, or involuntary humans to study such topics in the name of science, the eventual conclusion about the effects of any chemical or biochemical nerve agent is the same, that is, it kills if not debilitates.
In observing such things, one might become interested in the concept of Lethal Dosage 50 (LD50). This concept illustrates the median statistical ratios wherein, a particular dosage of a substance, weighed in units of mass, tends to kill at least fifty percent of the population of humans who become exposed to that particular substance. Unfortunately, the concept of LD50 as a measure of safety is very duplicitous because it does not say anything about the dosage at which a certain target population will become obtunded, injured, violently ill, sterilized, or permanently disabled.
As such, there most certainly needs to be an internationally followed standard that provides accurate and precise documentation about the hazardous nature of materials for different sets of dosages, that may produce illness and injury to those exposed to the material, especially if a certain percentage of the population happen to be critically susceptible to experiencing harm from those materials due to various biological or environmental factors. This need is very much underserved within mining and pharmaceutical industries.
Here, let me make the above point a bit more folksy:
-
Imagine if you were allergic to a particular food item, or some type of a substance that you could ingest, or perhaps something that could cause you to suffer immensely from merely coming into contact with it, while others may remain perfectly fine upon interacting with that substance. Now, if it were known to people serving you as a client that you were severely allergic to a particular substance, and could become grievously injured by it, wouldn't their actions of deliberately subjecting you to harm by forcibly introducing that substance into your body, constitute a criminal offense?
-
That type of an action would most certainly be considered immoral and unethical, because immoral and unethical deeds, typically involve dishonesty, betrayal, willful ignorance, and various forms of deliberately injurious or destructive actions.
-
Wouldn't it be worse, if such a disservice to tax-payers in the form of a planned criminal activity, was performed repeatedly by practitioners in a state-sponsored healthcare or an educational facility, on illegitimately and involuntarily detained persons?
The more important thing to note here is that pernicious actions by saboteurs and sappers are too difficult to counteract, irrespective of whether their actions do or do not involve extremes like scorching the earth, and poisoning drinking and irrigation water supply lines. This is mainly because successive generations of saboteurs and sappers can stay hidden in the field, for decades if not centuries, in the name of counter-insurgency missions. They are able to do so, via support from globalized corporate groups and entities such as Blackstone.
Those types of sappers do know which dosages of various kinds of substances, produce sufficient harm to a target population while evading detection. They, have known how to orchestrate under-the-radar attacks, since the earliest days of the Dutch East India Company, via commercial and culturally acceptable methods, in plain sight of regulatory entities concerned with public health and safety, by exploiting the lack of education and scientific knowledge among targeted populations. They also, have had the knowledge to make attacks look like addictions, natural borne diseases, ill-fated calamities, unavoidable accidents, or simplistic industrial disasters.
Supposedly, poor uneducated masses deserve cunning forms of abuse and harassment, by being targeted by French, German, British, Canadian, Australian, Israeli, and US-led sappers and saboteurs. Colonialist overlords who happen to command hired and trained nefarious malefactors, to keep colonized masses quelled and subdued, have habitually asserted their racist ideologies upon the world through their so-called "International 'Rules' Based Order", instead of giving innocent people and refugees legitimate forms of equitable treatment and genuine social upliftment.
This entire discussion about deliberately launched toxins, and their long-term pernicious effects, might as well be just another thought experiment, or "a what-if scenario." But, when one looks at the details of the way disasters like "Bhopal Gas Tragedy", and the use of "Agent Orange" have been handled by agencies of responsible countries, it becomes evident that eliminating poor people, or steadily depleting their lives, was the primary objective of those agencies to begin with.
Now, you wouldn't suppose that someone's job could be to merely write a few paragraphs about plausible, yet, 'clear and present dangers', so as to increase the government's budget on defense spending for various kinds of 'research projects', right?
I mean, it's not like a war, amounting to trillions of dollars in rampage driven expenditures, and tens of thousands of deaths, was fought in the Middle-East for more than two decades during the 21st Century, by having it authorized using just a few slides on a PowerPoint presentation about possible production facilities of biochemical weapons of mass destruction, wherein that presentation was propped up by the likes of Colin Powell with sparse data obtained from a hillbilly named "curve-ball", right?
Even if flaky reasons were presented to a senate on both sides of the Atlantic for initiating that war, the actual reasons for it were most certainly well founded and legitimate, weren't they? And most certainly that war has made the world a much better place for all living beings, hasn't it? At least people who made the most amount of income from that war didn't just suddenly run away from the mess they created once they realized that they had no clue about where the war was heading after two decades; or did they simply flee haphazardly?
This needs more summoning salt!
A few cogent paragraphs a day can generate a master's thesis in approximately a year. Staple three or four of such master's theses together, and you could even have a passable PhD dissertation. Such kind of work is especially appreciated by a number of labs in well reputed and well funded universities in North America, as well as in Western Europe, particularly within ones that are still operational and are exactly like the Allan Memorial Institute in Ontario, Canada.
Many defense based research agencies, and grants committees, are perpetually flush with money and paranoia. So, to get roped into a lab funded by them, one only needs to start a conversation with some of their members at a conference, or at a dinner party, using a "what-if."
Indeed, what-ifisim is more peculiar, and much more prevalent in society than what-aboutism. The sofishticated way of passing off such what-ifs, is to label them as thought experiments.
Especially among impatient police investigators, and mediocre researchers as well as legislators who try to force-fit a narrative to a set of data, the conversation during a team meeting starts with each participant casually brainstorming about what to do next. The sentences uttered during those brainstorming sessions start with, "maybe such-and-such happened," or, "what-if a certain such-and-such could have happened or might happen in the near future." And eventually, as the days go by, all of the "maybe" and the "what-ifs", are conveniently dropped from the conversations as well as from the produced legal documentations, and from the recorded write ups. The narratives thus obtained, become 'factual.' In such cases, the maybe turns into an actuality, due to 'manifest destiny', and through a series of official meetings glued together with a bit of gossip from conversations next to the water-cooler.
The smoother brainstormers and debaters with seats of authority, tend to steer those types of narratives during discussions and public hearings, by using mere interjections with phrases like, "I doubt that." They are able to pull off such phrases to gain power and personal advantages, in any conversation or an argument, because of their extra-smooth brain matter.
Much more miraculous are the conversations among smokers standing or squatting together, at a shady corner of any generic government building, who tend to provide 'plausible causes, strong pieces of evidence, indubitable deductions, as well as sound justifications.' And the conversations among drunks at a bar, or a bender party, can even generate 'breakthroughs' in very difficult to solve cases and research topics.
"So what?", you ask! "There is nothing corrupt, insidious, or nefarious about those kinds of activities among members of policing agencies, fiduciary organizations, or research institutions in massaging data to create 'plausible' narratives, is there? This is just the way life is", you say! "This is just the way things have been ongoing since pre-historic times, and are going to continue for generations to come", you proclaim.
But, I ask you this, "Should life remain in this kind of a rut?"
Now, if you felt offended by any of the above statements, you merely need to ask yourself whether you are impatient, or mediocre, or simultaneously impatient and mediocre?
You know, one may characterize me as a rather impatient person with a dark sense of humor, who is stuck in mediocrity. However, I prefer not to be labeled as this-or-that, and to not label myself as that-nor-this. I don't even have a logo or an Instagram account. I haven't yet figured out how to use those kinds of things.
Therefore, I only consider myself to be an amateur human who sometimes goes by the moniker of no_one.
No, please don't call me a nobody. Nobody could most probably get offended, if I went around claiming to be a nobody. I haven't even obtained a ham-radio license, and my guess is that nobody would scoff at any person like me who doesn't even know Morse Code.
Of course, then there are Everyone, and Anyone, each with their own sense of "poetic justice", which they feel ought to be, and needs to be, delivered to ones they see as wrongdoers.
One might as well deliver a steady course of Ozempic (which is psychotropic drug, and not only a diabetes treatment or a weight-loss medication), to heads-of-state in the UK, the EU, and in North America, to see if their glutenous appetite for global dominance, power, and control can be sated without those people committing acts of war, terror, genocide, sabotage, subversion, or manipulation.
The images and content used here belong to respective copyright holders, as and where indicated. They have been reproduced for non-commercial, educational purposes.
- Credit for source of Salt Bae's image used as meme in this article, must be definitely attributed to one of these online providers.
— End of File —