Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Billmon: Mutually Assured Dementia

by Bernhard Tue Apr 11th, 2006 at 05:48:02 PM EST

1. Read Billmon
2. Recommend this diary
3. Comment here and at Moon of Alabama

Billmon:

It appears our long national journey towards complete idiocy is over. We've arrived.
[...]
There simply isn't a precedent for the world's dominant superpower turning into a rogue state -- much less a rogue state willing to wage nuclear war against potential, even hypothetical, security threats. At that point, we'd truly be through the looking glass.
[...]

A country that nukes other countries merely on the suspicion that it may pose a future security threat isn't the equal of anybody. America would stand completely alone: hated by many, feared by all, admired only by the world's other tyrants. To call that a watershed event seems a ridiculous understatement.
[...]
When a culture is as historically clueless and morally desensitized as this one appears to be, I don't think it's absurd to suppose that even an enormous war crime - the worst imaginable, short of outright genocide -- could get lost in the endless babble of the talking heads.
[...]
What's truly scary, though, is the possibility that even though the other members of what we jokingly refer to as the international community don't share Bush's delusions, they may be willing to humor them as long as it is in their own narrow self-interest to do so (in other words, as long as they're not the ones being nuked.) Maybe power really is all the justification that power needs. In which case the downhill path for America - the most powerful country that ever was - is likely to be very steep indeed.

Display:
Billmon: Mutually Assured Dementia | 21 comments (21 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
end of the story (none / 0)
Given the fact that all oil in the middle east is under Shiites soil !!! in Saudi Arabia (all oil is in north-East, Shi'a), Kuwait, Iraq and of course Iran.

even if Hormuz stay open (and it is very unlikely) not a drop of oil will be produce if the main Shi'a country, Iran is attacked.

The crisis in US will be much worst than 1929, with a gallon at $20 for a very long term

enjoy your car while you can ;-)

by fredouil (fredouil@gmailgmailgmail.com) on Tue Apr 11th, 2006 at 08:09:50 PM EST
Re: end of the story (none / 1)
That could actually turn out quite well for us sleazy europeans, that will be eager to step in. Middle-eastern countries won't be able to sell to the US for obvious reasons, but they'll want to keep business running, so oil will simply jump through a few hoops before reaching north america, spilling some heavy cash on the way... Especially the French could differentiate themselves fairly well (they already refuse to speak a decent english after all).

Not that it will matter anyway... once the Nagasaki-induced stupour on the consequences of atomic warfare has completely disappeared, something really stupid will happen, and humanity will rapidly go extinct.

by toyg (g.lacava@gmail.com) on Wed Apr 12th, 2006 at 05:07:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Billmon: Mutually Assured Dementia (4.00 / 3)
Of course, when America goes down the rest of the world, particularly we Pacific Islanders, is further down below. The leading elitish Japanese newspaper ran a short article on Hirsch and WaPo, adding smugly that "these stories are believed by some to be part of a calculated psychological gambit which will go on for a while." They don't have a clue; they just copy the WaPo/BBC and paste it.

I recall somebody said "The fate sneaks upon you like a mouse." It means there is normally no warning, fanfare, opening statement, ceremony or anything before a truly historic turn of events. I can easily imagine, our society would be thrown into a shock for a few hours after a pre-emptive strike, then the prime minister shows up on television and proclaim he supports the nuclear attack. He will emphasize "Imagine what the world would be like if Iran would have nuclear weapons! America is our ally!" Then the sheepish public will start looking around to see how others would react, and conclude "Well, thank goodness we are an ally of America!" Life will then go on. "We can live more safely now America has shown resolve to stand up to other security threats!" "Don't you want to be another Iran, China, hah!"

This is the state of our country these days. Mass media then will try everything to sell more subscriptions and join the bandwagon. So America, you are not alone. The only victim of nuclear attacks (not necessarily true as there were many Koreans in Hiroshima), now nuts, will be with you, going down the path, if that offers any comfort.

I will become a patissier, God willing.

by tuasfait on Wed Apr 12th, 2006 at 12:31:56 AM EST
Re: typo (none / 0)
Hersh, not Hirsch. Silly me...I even saw him once.

I will become a patissier, God willing.
by tuasfait on Wed Apr 12th, 2006 at 02:37:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Billmon: Mutually Assured Dementia (4.00 / 2)
This hits the mark too:

More to my point, though, I think it's possible that even something as monstrously insane as nuclear war could still be squeezed into the tiny rituals that pass for public debate in this country - the game of dueling TV sound bites that trivializes and then disposes of every issue.

We've already seen a lengthy list of war crimes and dictatorial power grabs sink into that electronic compost heap: the WMD disinformation campaign, Abu Ghraib, the torture memos, the de facto repeal of the 4th amendment. Again, why should a nuclear strike be any different? I can easily imagine the same rabid talk show hosts spouting the same jingoistic hate speech, the same bow-tied conservative pundits offering the same recycled talking points, and the same timid Beltway liberals complaining that while nuking Iran was the right thing to do, the White House went about it the wrong way. And I can already hear the same media critics chiding those of us in left Blogostan for blowing the whole thing out of proportion. It's just a little bunker buster, after all.



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Apr 12th, 2006 at 04:25:38 AM EST
Re: Billmon: Mutually Assured Dementia (none / 1)
I have a hard time seeing that the European governments will be able to keep as quiet as Billmon claims thought. There is going to be a storm of leftists and muslim immigrants in European countries. Politicians will be forced to go into opposition or be swept from power.

My guess: The EU will quickly find a new mission as a counterweight against the United States. Massive rearmament, nuclear as well as conventional follows.

by Trond Ove on Wed Apr 12th, 2006 at 05:12:25 AM EST
Re: Billmon: Mutually Assured Dementia (none / 0)
I have a hard time seeing that the European governments will be able to keep as quiet as Billmon claims thought.

I am more pessimistic. The public is less sceptical now than before Iraq, and no government launched a pre-emptive anti-war line (like Schröder's did last time). The protests may fizzle out.

Massive rearmament, nuclear as well as conventional follows.

I don't think so. I don't think the EU will even attempt an armament race with the USA, if at all, then in other fields. (This is not only my desire speaking: I don't think existing EU-military ambitions can be throttled up that much against the economic, social and political realities and reigning philosophies in Europe.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Apr 12th, 2006 at 07:03:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Billmon: Mutually Assured Dementia (none / 1)
The point wouldnt be to start another armaments race but to be able to be a credible force on its own and to deter an increasingly erratic United States.

I actually think the reason that there are less resistance now, is that the great majority of people (including European politicians) think the US is bluffing, since they have fucked up so much already. I am pretty certain the shock if the U.S. attacks with Nuclear weapons will HAVE to force many European countries into strong reactions.

by Trond Ove on Wed Apr 12th, 2006 at 07:41:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Billmon: Mutually Assured Dementia (none / 1)
The point wouldnt be to start another armaments race but to be able to be a credible force on its own and to deter an increasingly erratic United States.

If economic dependencies and the belief that we can't turn into targets only the Third World weren't enough, French and British nukes already are there to deter. (North Korea's few nukes are enough to deter.) But to build a strategic arsenal on par with that of the USA, I think that is a practical impossibility (and one realised as such) for the above wide-ranging reasons. (For example, no one will want to branch off that much money from the economy.)

As for "credible force", this is the mantra of the Euro-militarists already, but I don't see it catching on just because of the USA. The EU likes to deal with outside effects through economic and diplomatic means, and most people can't really feel all that threatened. A US nuke in Iran won't change that.

I actually think the reason that there are less resistance now, is that the great majority of people (including European politicians) think the US is bluffing

I am sceptical on that. After Iraq, I'd expect people to assume the opposite, and lack of resistance comes from a feeling of powerlessness. (The Franco-German opposition to the Iraq war gave a lot of people hope, I don't think the 15 Feb 2003 protest would have been as big if they had lurched along.) As for the politicians, I believe they unfortunately believe they can hold off the neocons with appeasement, not that they don't mean it.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Apr 12th, 2006 at 11:23:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Billmon: Mutually Assured Dementia (4.00 / 3)
The UK do not have nukes - they are US controlled.

France does, and they will suddenly acquire real significance in the case of a US strike against Iran.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Apr 12th, 2006 at 06:45:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Billmon: Mutually Assured Dementia (none / 1)
In which case the announcement that Iran has succesfully completed enrichemnt for power generation seems provocatively timed to say to the neo-cons "C'mon big boy, show us what ya got !!"

Seriously tho', what does Iran hope to achieve by this announcement ? It surely doesn't achieve anything in real diplomatic terms, so it must just be a provocation. Yet even the fun of inciting the US into its greatest folly must be somewhat undermined by having your country turned into a smoking nuclear ruin.

That it will quickly bring about the ruination of the USA will be scant consolation when Iran is dead.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Apr 12th, 2006 at 06:45:14 AM EST
Re: Billmon: Mutually Assured Dementia (none / 1)
Maybe from Iran's perpective the question is "what have they got to lose?". Iraq provided no provocation and it was attacked anyway. Backing down did not help Iraq, so what incentive does Iran have to follow suit?.
by det on Wed Apr 12th, 2006 at 10:21:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Billmon: Mutually Assured Dementia (none / 0)
eggs-actly!

there is unfortunately a warped nobility to their cornered reasoning.

sobering stuff...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Apr 12th, 2006 at 05:33:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Billmon: Mutually Assured Dementia (none / 1)
Billmon writes:


Yes, the price of oil could go to $150 a barrel, and yes, Iran could retaliate with a terrorist offensive that would light Iraq and the Persian Gulf up like Roman candles. We can't rule out a major attack on American soil. (A recent report based on Saudi intelligence sources claims the al-Quds Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps -- probably the most capable terrorist support organization in the world -- already has a box on its organizational chart labeled "North America.")

But, barring another 9/11, or a worldwide financial meltdown, the day after a nuclear strike on Iran might not look that much different than the day before, at least to the folks back home. The impact on oil prices -- and even more importantly, on prices at the pump -- might be containable, at least in the short-term, if the Straits of Hormuz remain open and the strategic oil reserve does what it's supposed to do. (Very big ifs, to be sure, but not impossible ones. Neither of the last two wars in the gulf turned into the energy catastrophes everyone had feared when they began.) Financial markets might actually rally if Wall Street judges the strike to have been a "success."

There is no way in hell that a nuclear strike on Iran does not trigger a total economic meltdown. Hormuz will be closed off absolutely, and the Gulf countries are totally unlikely to keep on delivering oil to the West in any case.

Oil sill not reach 150$/bl, but 5,000$/b as we need to destroy one third of our demand instantaneously. Rationing, state of emergency everywhere, and whatever chaos Iranian special forces (hard to call them terrorists in such circumstances) cause in whatever countries they'll be attacking.

Meltdown, war footing, suspension of democracy, ...

An unprovoked nuclear strike? It will be really, really ugly.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Apr 12th, 2006 at 06:50:44 PM EST
But (none / 1)
we know from the history that there were once millions of people who were led to the slaughterhouse without much protest. I don't think we are any more visionary than the victims of the Holocaust.

Yes, there is a cloud over the horizon. Families meet at the dinner table and talk "Are we alright?" "Aren't they taking us to the hell?" "No, I can't imagine anybody willingly committing mass murders, it is a waste of time and resources." "Yeah, I heard we will only be relocated, the problem is if we can buy milk there" "Let's stop this nonsense. Tomorrow we have to get up early"....


I will become a patissier, God willing.

by tuasfait on Wed Apr 12th, 2006 at 09:40:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Billmon: Mutually Assured Dementia (none / 1)
yes it will be ugly but i think the world need a very good shack up, it s getting really boring with all businesses as usual.

it would be nice to retrieve the after war' dynamism and hapiness of the fifties and sixties.

by fredouil (fredouil@gmailgmailgmail.com) on Thu Apr 13th, 2006 at 02:05:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Billmon: Mutually Assured Dementia (none / 1)
I don't look forward to the 'after war' of a nuclear war and the accompanying destruction of our institutions that it will bring (not to mention the more obvious damage to populations and economies)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Apr 13th, 2006 at 04:35:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Billmon: Mutually Assured Dementia (none / 1)
Why, Jerome, but I do believe you're waxing pessimistic. Come on to the Dark Side, we'll make room for you. :-)

Snark aside, I remember the Jerome from 2 or 3 years ago, when you began posting regularly, and does it seem to you that you've become far more radical and darker in vision than you used to be?

 

by Lupin on Thu Apr 13th, 2006 at 11:26:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Billmon: Mutually Assured Dementia (none / 1)
Well, I still consider myself a centrist (and the political compass test sort of bears that out), but I see the ground moving to the right so much that I end up looking like a lefty...

Seriously, the more you read about peak oil, the harder it is to be reassured that a smooth transition can take place. I still believe it is possible (which probably makes me an optimist) because we waste so much and could change our ways without meaningful loss of "prosperity" - but the more time passes, and the more I see that only a crisis will bring this about.

On the nuclear front, well, attacking Iran is (i) talked about and (ii) totally stupid, so one cannot help being worried. And a nuclear attack would certainly have terrifying consesquences - and yet it seems it cannot totally be excluded with this administration.

In my optimistic days, I think that they actually care about our future, and are actually trying to bring about as quickly as possible the crisis that will finally force us to change our wasteful ways...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Apr 13th, 2006 at 12:17:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Billmon: Mutually Assured Dementia (none / 1)
What is interesting, and what I reflect upon occasionally, is how the last 5 years or so have changed us all.

When I look back, even my rather pessimistic outlook of 2003 seems rosy compared to where we are today, and I can't help wondering in I'll say the same thing in 2009. It is a scary thought.

As you heard me say quite often, I think the next decade -- in a weirdly similar parallel with the first decade or so of the 20th century -- will see some major transformations in the world order.

by Lupin on Thu Apr 13th, 2006 at 12:57:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Billmon: Mutually Assured Dementia (none / 1)
When I look back, even my rather pessimistic outlook of 2003 seems rosy compared to where we are today

Heh, I just dug up my earlier self on the evening open thread too... but I got pessimistic enough in December 2001.

(Jérôme, this is what I meant.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Apr 13th, 2006 at 06:05:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Billmon: Mutually Assured Dementia | 21 comments (21 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]