Butterfly Effects

[Occhidiangela]

The passing of the Pope John Paul II got a lot of media attention. The man spent a career working to make the world a better place. What impressed me most about him was his very public forgiveness of the guy who tried to assassinate him, the man who shot him, and his efforts to move forward a reconciliation between Christianity and Judaism.

His passing marks an exit from the world stage of a Cold War leader who saw and worked to a brighter future. The Not-So-Cold-War has been going on since about 1989, and seems now to smell of the Cold War, Part Deux. In this version, multipolar power blocs are playing at the table, and, joy of joys, the gameplay includes the re-release of an old game, Nukes: Part Deux.

Over thirty years of disarmament talks and treaties, real disarmament (stockpile reductions), and inconsistently sincere non-proliferation efforts are not enough. This nuke thing requires a lot more work.

The news if sull of stories about various political organs seeking to acquire nukes. The current U.S. administration recently funded research into a "small tactical nukes for bunker busting." This silver bullet renaissance was undertaken despite the damage to the credibility of non-proliferation efforts, still a matter of American policy, that such an effort brings. (A good technical discussion was written up in Scientific American last year, and is worth a look.) If ever US leadership was needed for this global concern, it is for this one. I will point out that the US is not the only nation or political entity who needs to step up to the leadership plate. Leadership works best when action sets the example, not words.

Even today, some wannabes seek to join the "nuclear country club." Ever since China set off a bomb in the 1960's, proving their credentials, some "Third World" players have seen joining "The Club of the Crazy" as a status symbol. They don't "get" why the charter members are looking for practical ways to disband and shut down the club. The pieces for playing that game are, it is re-confirmed, available.

New York Times  April 2, 2005
Ukraine: Missile Smuggling Confirmed

President Viktor A. Yushchenko confirmed that his country had illegally sold six nuclear-capable cruise missiles to Iran and six to China in 2001, under his predecessor, Leonid Kuchma. "I confirm this, though I do so with bitterness," he told NBC-TV in an interview, remarks of which were carried by news agencies. The Soviet-era Kh-55 cruise missiles, which have a range of 1,860 miles, were smuggled out under fake contracts.
--Erin E. Arvedlund (NYT)

Nukes, Part Deux, presents today's Alexanders with a few more turns on the Gordian knot thanks to "extra national" entities, non-treaty participants. These players don't play by country club rules. They are like golf fans who come to a tournament, and then use their clubs to attack fans and players alike. They play by their rules, and of course ruin the game.

While President Yuschenko's revelation is admirable, it is most likely the tip of the iceberg. The international scrutiny that nuclear delivery systems and materials attract has forced the networks that promote proliferation to ensconce themselves firmly underground. How much is still down there, in the dark?

The comedian asks "How many Californians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?" The answer is "Five -- one to do it and four to share the experience."

I'll pose a less humorous question:

Q: How many nuclear weapons does it take to screw up global stability?
A: One, when it detonates on a "for real" target.

Nukes are in a class by themselves, as the Sarin gas attack in Tokyo demonstrated. Had that been a nuke that went off, the death toll would have been in the thousands. The language of discussion has mutated, and is simply wrong. WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) obscures the real mass destruction weapon, whereas the old term, NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) spelled things out clearly. Let's get the language right, for starters, and let's see more than talk. If someone could translate this paragraph into Chinese, I'd appreciate it and send it to Beijing.

Are the leaders of the world serious about crafting a secure global community? If so, close the Country Club's doors, plow the course under, and build a minefield around it. While you are at it, gentlemen, quit with the hypocrisy, stop engaging in enabling behavior and cover ups for the wannabes, and stop making excuses for those who won't play by the rules. Resenting "The West's" wealth is no excuse for setting off nukes. The Soviets understood that, but some of the current players don't care.

A lot of us grew up under the specter of thermo nuclear war. We knew that on any given day the MIRV-tipped ballistic missiles might fly by the dozen. (If someone acted insanely.) For a short while after The Wall went down, it seemed that we were on our way to exorcising the malignant spirit of nuclear weapons, but I'd say the rite is incomplete. The spirit still haunts us. Maybe a new exorcist can add to the team's success.

Another leader may soon enter the world stage. American flags are being flown at half-mast in honor of his predecessor, thanks to his status as a world leader. Will the next Pope be a leader, or merely a berobed bureaucrat and windbag, like so many other prominent clergymen and so-called leaders? Will the new Pope consider what to do about the first nuclear weapon of the 21st century going off on a target somewhere, or what he can do to help prevent it? Will he understand how important it is to be a leader? Will other world leaders get it, or will they remain speakers rather than doers?

Seaking of doing, what am I going to do? What I can do, which is write to my Senators and Congressman, encouraging them to advise our leadership to reverse America's step toward renewing nuclear proliferation, and asking that the US exercise leadership by example regarding nuclear non-proliferation.

If there is something you can do, albeit small, won't you join me in adding a few butterfly wing flaps of sanity into the air currents of geopolitics? I don't know if it will help, but like the prayers being said for Pope John Paul II, it can't hurt.

Occhi

[ShadowHM]

Another leader may soon enter the world stage.  American flags are being flown at half-mast in honor of his predecessor, thanks to his status as a world leader.  Will the next Pope be a leader, or merely a berobed bureaucrat and windbag, like so many other prominent clergymen and so-called leaders?  Will the new Pope consider what to do about the first nuclear weapon of the 21st century going off on a target somewhere, or what he can do to help prevent it?  Will he understand how important it is to be a leader?  Will other world leaders get it, or will they remain speakers rather than doers? 


[right][snapback]73073[/snapback][/right]

I wish I could be optimistic, and reply that I believe that we will see a man selected who will focus on world issues.

The Church of Rome is a church that has deep divisions within it. The American and Canadian chapters have very different agenda items than the African chapters, for example. The Church in North America has a lot of "I am a good Catholic but....." members. "I am a good Catholic, but I still use birth control." "I am a good Catholic, but I will vote for gay marriage." "I am a good Catholic, but I am frustrated with paying for the sins of the priesthood, so I don't tithe anymore."

I rather expect that the next Pontiff will be spending his time trying to create unity within the Church, and not on unity within mankind. Maybe he will grow into the job of 'world leader'. Maybe....

[Doc]

Speaking from my gut...

The new guy will be no saint. Not at all. He will appear to be a shining light, but, in truth, will most likely be paving the way for The Antichrist. I suspect that one way, or another, the new puppet, er, pope, will be a very liberal pope who will tell people that it's all ok... Women in the clergy, gays, birth control, etc, it's all good. Either that, or he will provide lip service, denouncing all of these things with his words, while quietly working toward them when nobody is looking.

The Little Horn is rebuilding Babylon, as it was predicted thousands of years ago, and time grows short. World peace is going to happen, or at least the illusion of it. For a few short blessed years, all will be well and one man will make the world a perfect place. After those few years, probably 3 and a 1/2 years, it will be every man for himself for the next 3 and a 1/2 years.

Time grows short. And interesting.

[jahcs]

Nuclear capable missiles sold to Iran and China in 2001... No wonder Iran has been pushing their nuclear program so much these last couple years. I also wonder if a version of the missiles sent to China have made it to North Korea?

[Occhidiangela]

Speaking from my gut...

The new guy will be no saint. Not at all. He will appear to be a shining light, but, in truth, will most likely be paving the way for The Antichrist. I suspect that one way, or another, the new puppet, er, pope, will be a very liberal pope who will tell people that it's all ok... Women in the clergy, gays, birth control, etc, it's all good. Either that, or he will provide lip service, denouncing all of these things with his words, while quietly working toward them when nobody is looking.

The Little Horn is rebuilding Babylon, as it was predicted thousands of years ago, and time grows short. World peace is going to happen, or at least the illusion of it. For a few short blessed years, all will be well and one man will make the world a perfect place. After those few years, probably 3 and a 1/2 years, it will be every man for himself for the next 3 and a 1/2 years.

Time grows short. And interesting.
[right][snapback]73100[/snapback][/right]

So what yer sayin' is, Doc, that nuclear war is chicken feed compared to the End Days and the Final Judgment? :o

If there aint no earth left, whose gonna hear the rapture? ;)

Occhi

[Lord_Olf]

Hail,

I wouldn't bet the house on the next Pope being a leader in the sense that John Paul II. was.

Here in Germany, as well as around the rest of the world, I guess, press coverage centered on the geopolitical work done by the late Pope. In that, he has done great, no doubt.

But these successes tend to mask his interior politics. He strongly supported Opus Dei, an order that is seen as rather extremist, his views about abortion or homosexuality weren't excatly liberal, and one of the last "big things" was announcing Roman Catolicism as "the one true church" - greatly annoying Protestant and other churches, and not exactly a giant stride towards the 21st century.

Add to that the fact that almost all Cardinals responsible for electing the now Pope have been picked by John Paul II. - not likely that they will elect someone who will take a 180 degree turn from conservative to liberal, is it?

Also, the late Pope was often chided for travelling too much and not paying enough attention to Vatican politics...

All that added together, I don't have very high hopes for the next Pope - it smells like he's going to be a very conservative sort, someone geared towards "preserving" the state of the Roman Catholic church. Which is to say someone who will probably drive even more people from "his" church because of views that are, to my thinking, outdated and not really humanitarian (Policy regarding contraceptives, especially condoms in view of AIDS etc.). Seems to me that his focus will be there, not in international relations... but I guess we'll have to wait 'till white smoke rises.

Take care,

Lord_Olf

[Occhidiangela]

Hail,

I wouldn't bet the house on the next Pope being a leader in the sense that John Paul II. was.

Here in Germany, as well as around the rest of the world, I guess, press coverage centered on the geopolitical work done by the late Pope. In that, he has done great, no doubt.

But these successes tend to mask his interior politics. He strongly supported Opus Dei, an order that is seen as rather extremist, his views about abortion or homosexuality weren't excatly liberal, and one of the last "big things" was announcing Roman Catolicism as "the one true church" - greatly annoying Protestant and other churches, and not exactly a giant stride towards the 21st century.

The innner politics do not strike me as being the Pope's most critical tasks. He has an entire college of Cardinals to struggle through the details before he makes a decision. He can indeed focus his attention on global issues, if he has a mind to.

The Vatican meetings (Lateran Council?) of the early 1960's were a significant step forward in the liberalization of the Catholic Church, however, the internal counter reaction to that is still being seen, as you point out. Me, I'd like to see a Pope take a position of excommunication toward clergy who abuse the trust of the laity, as the pedophiles have done. It would give me a better reason to consider entering The Faith. (My wife is Catholic.)

In the US, particularly in the Northeast as I saw it, there was a significant congregational revolt, or at least objection, to the donations to their local churches having been skimmed (at least that was the perception) to pay the millions of dollars of damages awarded in the cases of clerical child abuse. Those millions of dollars were funds not spent on upgrading the Catholic schools, church repair or construction, charitable works, etc. That breach of trust may be repairable, and it may not. It is certainly one of two areas where The Church could take a few risks and grow into a better organization.

A good friend provided a quote elsewhere.

The important thing is this: to be able to sacrifice at any moment what we are for what we would become. ~Charles DuBois~

The other is in allowing the Cleregy to marry, an opportunity for the clergy to lead by example, rather from a position of aloof presumption of moral superiority.

My in-laws attend a Catholic church. One of the priests used to be a Lutheran. He converted to Mother Church, as it were, but he already had a wife and three children. He is a good man, and the Church sees fit to leave his marital status alone. (I am sure he had to apply for a waiver.) It is not that long of a leap to the clergy marrying. Why the obstinate reluctance to adapt a successful reform that the Protestant Churches have? I call it institutional ego. :P

The Pope, as the "spiritual leader" of millions of Catholics around the world, must engage in international affairs. Stalin was once asked what he intended to do about the Pope, and his caustic (possibly apocryphal) reply was "How many divisions does he have?" Applying the answer to "The Riddle of Steel" from the movie Conan, :blink: the reply to Stalin should have been "He has no divisions, but rather multitudes" although not in the same sense that a national leader has an army. His is a different sort of influence, but it is influence.

Add to that the fact that almost all Cardinals responsible for electing the now Pope have been picked by John Paul II. - not likely that they will elect someone who will take a 180 degree turn from conservative to liberal, is it?

A 180 is not necessary, but a 60 degree course adjustment might be nice. :)

  Also, the late Pope was often chided for travelling too much and not paying enough attention to Vatican politics...

Good for him. :D Get out from behind the walls and do a little "deckplate leadership" if you lead such a big organization. Carry your team's flag to the four corners of the Earth. Not a bad policy, particularly in this media crazy age. The "hide behind the walls" approach can be easily spun by critics as hiding one's head in the sand, like an Ostrich, while the world goes by. That critique would hold more than a grain of truth.

  All that added together, I don't have very high hopes for the next Pope - it smells like he's going to be a very conservative sort, someone geared towards "preserving" the state of the Roman Catholic church. Which is to say someone who will probably drive even more people from "his" church because of views that are, to my thinking, outdated and not really humanitarian (Policy regarding contraceptives, especially condoms in view of AIDS etc.). Seems to me that his focus will be there, not in international relations... but I guess we'll have to wait 'till white smoke rises.
Take care,
Lord_Olf

There is a joke I heard as a boy. The Pope is addressing a crowd in St Peter's Square, reconfirming his policy against use of contraceptives. About half way through his speech, an Italian matron shakes her head and calls out "Papa, if you no playa the game, you no makea the rules!""

All in all, you are right, we shall see if the Church wants to grow, or play Ostrich, once the white smoke clears.

Occhi

[Savingsupertokyo]

Speaking from my gut...

The new guy will be no saint. Not at all. He will appear to be a shining light, but, in truth, will most likely be paving the way for The Antichrist. I suspect that one way, or another, the new puppet, er, pope, will be a very liberal pope who will tell people that it's all ok... Women in the clergy, gays, birth control, etc, it's all good. Either that, or he will provide lip service, denouncing all of these things with his words, while quietly working toward them when nobody is looking.

The Little Horn is rebuilding Babylon, as it was predicted thousands of years ago, and time grows short. World peace is going to happen, or at least the illusion of it. For a few short blessed years, all will be well and one man will make the world a perfect place. After those few years, probably 3 and a 1/2 years, it will be every man for himself for the next 3 and a 1/2 years.

Time grows short. And interesting.
[right][snapback]73100[/snapback][/right]

The only thing that Lahaye and Jenkins got right in their books is that the antichrist will rise from the UN, not the papacy.

Long have people thought of the pope as a possible anti-christ. I just don't see it happening.

[eppie]

But these successes tend to mask his interior politics. He strongly supported Opus Dei, an order that is seen as rather extremist, his views about abortion or homosexuality weren't excatly liberal, and one of the last "big things" was announcing Roman Catolicism as "the one true church" - greatly annoying Protestant and other churches, and not exactly a giant stride towards the 21st century.

Add to that the fact that almost all Cardinals responsible for electing the now Pope have been picked by John Paul II. - not likely that they will elect someone who will take a 180 degree turn from conservative to liberal, is it?

[right][snapback]73135[/snapback][/right]

Exactly, and several of these chosen kardinals from south america were supporters of the junta's over there. And to be that in such a continent (with a lot of poor katholics) is not a very noble thing. He knew it, they knew it, the world knew it....but nobody does anything.

When somebody dies, people tend to only remember the good things and never the bad things. I just think this pope was no saint.


About the weapons. I can very well imagine that a lot of countries want to have nuclear arms. If the US and russia (and some others) have them, and there is no cold war anymore, they (and I mean countries like iran, pakistan, india, china, north korea) can very well be the next victim of the superpowers.......a few atomic bombs might be a good defense.

I mean let's not kid ourselves. If teh US knew for real that Saddam had nuclear weapons they would never have tried to invade Irak.

As you probably know I'm not such a big supporter of militarism, I'm just saying I can imagine why these things go on.

[Occhidiangela]

When somebody dies, people tend to only remember the good things and never the bad things. I just think this pope was no saint.

Or as Shakespeare said, somewhat sarcastically . . .

"The evil men do lives after them, the good if oft interred with their bones."

About the weapons.  I can very well imagine that a lot of countries want to have nuclear arms. If the US and russia (and some others) have them, and there is no cold war anymore, they (and I mean countries like iran, pakistan, india, china, north korea) can very well be the next victim of the superpowers.......a few atomic bombs might be a good defense.

I mean let's not kid ourselves. If teh US knew for real that Saddam had nuclear weapons they would never have tried to invade Irak.

Eppie, a few things you are missing the point on. Nuclear bombs are not a defensive weapon, they are pure offense. Having them acts, sometimes, as a deterrent. So far. China has been a nuclear power since the mid 1960's.

"Can very well be the next victim of the superpowers."

Interesting view you have of the nation who protected your nation under its security umbrella for 50 years. :P Victim of the superpowers indeed.

As for "if Iraq had Nukes" is a specious argument. The Israelis did what they had to to prevent that in 1981. Part of the reason Pres Bush gave for going in, (the WMD reason that seems full of holes in hindsight,) is that Saddam had no scruples and would indeed be presumed to use Nuclear Weapons offensively, rather than as a deterrent.

If Iraq had had nukes? Yes, I think the war would still have happened, if he had no ICBM to deliver them with. There are a lot of ifs in your scenario and conclusion that you need to flesh out before you make such conclusions.

Occhi

[eppie]

Eppie, a few things you are missing the point on.  Nuclear bombs are not a defensive weapon, they are pure offense.  Having them acts, sometimes, as a deterrent. 

---well actually they have been used once as a offensive weapon (but that instance did not really call for the use of such power) and for the rest they have been purely defensive. The MAD scared all the owners of the weapons. As long as there are several countries that own them, none of them will use them.


So far.  China has been a nuclear power since the mid 1960's.

"Can very well be the next victim of the superpowers." 

Interesting view you have of the nation who protected your nation under its security umbrella for 50 years.  :P  Victim of the superpowers indeed.


---listen I didn't ask for the cold war. And the way I see it we were just used as a safetybuffer. :P

As for "if Iraq had Nukes" is a specious argument.  The Israelis did what they had to to prevent that in 1981.  Part of the reason Pres Bush gave for going in, (the WMD reason that seems full of holes in hindsight,) is that Saddam had no scruples and would indeed be presumed to use Nuclear Weapons offensively, rather than as a deterrent. 



If Iraq had had nukes?  Yes, I think the war would still have happened, if he had no ICBM to deliver them with.  There are a lot of ifs in your scenario and conclusion that you need to flesh out before you make such conclusions.


---my comment was purely used so that I was sure I got a reaction. :D  And it was easy to make. Of course there are a lot of ifs but it seems quite plausible I must say. A crazy madman that tortured his own people, gassed the Kurds would have no problems with using whatever he could possibly find against his real enemys. I mean if he tortured his own football team if they didn't win, do you think he would have any problem with attacking people that invaded his country.
We had this discussion before, and no there is no proof, but my view on this subject is a lot more credible than that of the Bush administration......especially now that after the war I was right on the point that there were indeed no WMDs in Iraq (check out the old forums but I'm sure you also remember)

Occhi
[right][snapback]73914[/snapback][/right]

Anyway, back to the main point. I'm not surprised by the fact that many countries would like to have WMDs. But at the same time I'm also glad that the US and russi still have them.

[Occhidiangela]

Anyway, back to the main point. I'm not surprised by the fact that many countries would like to have WMDs. But at the same time I'm also glad that the US and russi still have them.
[right][snapback]73918[/snapback][/right]

OK. :) And I would like to see non proliferation, and nuclear disarmament (even if gradual) continue forward, not fall backwards into the madness that was MAD. (Mutual Assured Destruction.) I may be dreaming.

Occhi

[Rinnhart]

OK.  :)  And I would like to see non proliferation, and nuclear disarmament (even if gradual) continue forward, not fall backwards into the madness that was MAD.  (Mutual Assured Destruction.)  I may be dreaming.

Occhi
[right][snapback]73922[/snapback][/right]

You are. :D

"Mini-nukes," anyone?

The atomic genie is out of the bottle. Now we need an antimatter genie to put him in a sleeperhold!

That said, weren't nuclear weapons expected in the Gulf War, to begin with? I don't think it was ever firmly established that Saddam had been disarmed- thus why it was possible to sucker the public into supporting a second war.

EDIT: mutatis mutandis

[whyBish]

OK.  :)  And I would like to see non proliferation, and nuclear disarmament (even if gradual) continue forward, not fall backwards into the madness that was MAD.  (Mutual Assured Destruction.)  I may be dreaming.

Occhi
[right][snapback]73922[/snapback][/right]

When all of the superpowers have female leaders ;)
I may be dreaming :P

[Fragbait]

Now it's out:

Abenus papam - we have a new pope.

Cardinal Josef Ratzinger from Marktl, Bavaria, Germany made it. In the fourth ballot, at least two-thirds of the 115 cardinals chose him, and white smoke arose.

He will be taking the name Benedict XVI. I'm curious what this hardliner will do during his papacy, but I suspect not much good. Anyways, it's the first german pope since 480 years.
What are you thinking?


Greetings, Fragbait

[Mirajj]

What are you thinking?
[right][snapback]74473[/snapback][/right]

"The Enforcer", "The Panzer Cardinal", and "God's Rottweiler" should say it all. The new pope's pre pope-al nicknames. As well, he was the head of the order that was formerly known as the Inquistion.

The church will go crawling back into the dark ages one way or another, it seems.

[Occhidiangela]

When all of the superpowers have female leaders  ;)
I may be dreaming  :P
[right][snapback]74389[/snapback][/right]

Right. A countersunk prime minister is sure to solve all a nation's, and the world's, problems. Bring on Catherine the Great, the Mass Media edition.

In a cynical counter your sexist :P position, your none too subtle assertion that gender is a determinant in bad government:

Are you sure the world needs menopausal women with access to nuclear weapons and the red button? Two hundred woman on PMS in charge of all of the arsenals of the world?

Be careful of what you wish for, whybish, as you are sure to get it.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

"The Enforcer", "The Panzer Cardinal", and "God's Rottweiler" should say it all. The new pope's pre pope-al nicknames. As well, he was the head of the order that was formerly known as the Inquistion.

The church will go crawling back into the dark ages one way or another, it seems.
[right][snapback]74477[/snapback][/right]

Heh. The current inquisitions are known as the "international media" and the "ICC."

We shall see how Mein Pope (or will he insist in Mein Vater) shall wear that funny looking hat.

Occhi

[Jeunemaitre]

"The Enforcer", "The Panzer Cardinal", and "God's Rottweiler" should say it all. The new pope's pre pope-al nicknames. As well, he was the head of the order that was formerly known as the Inquistion.

The church will go crawling back into the dark ages one way or another, it seems.

Wow, I guess I picked the right time to think about converting to Judaism. I mean, really, who would feel comfortable in a confessional with "The Enforcer?" I have no idea what this new Pope intends to do with his time in the office, but it seems that the Church is not as interested in the invigorated image that JPII was on the verge of portraying, but by his age alone, this new election seems to indicate a return to the older, stricter stances of the Church.

edit: changed the las line or so. Still not aware of a new platform for the Church, but looking forward to hearing one

[ima_nerd]

I HIGHLY recommend the book The Genesis Code to anyone even remotely interested in the Catholic Church. I'm not finished with it yet (I've had lots going on or I would have been done in a matter of days) but the basic storyline is about a sect of the Catholic Church, Umbra Domini (Shadow of the Lord I believe) and their crazy extremeist views, a confession that prompts a priest to report an "attack on the faith" to the Pope himself, and the relation between Umbra Domini and an almost ritualistic murder happening in DC. Anywho, good book, it's by John Case. Go get it. Now.