Given the premise that nothing is more precious to a living soul than life itself, does it not follow that any idea deemed worthy of the ultimate sacrifice should be defended, as well, by any means short of sacrificing one's life, so long as the idea itself is not abrogated? Consider the Grand Idea of the American Republic, Abraham Lincoln's 'Last best hope of Earth'. This Republic has been defended at the cost of many lives since its inception over two centuries ago, for which all but the self immolating are grateful. If we grant that our Republic is worth that sacrifice, does it not make sense to also defend it by any means other than all out war?
The enemies of our Republic, including those within our own borders, are unscrupulous in their attack. The defenders, by and large, are encumbered by many scruples, which has a debilitating effect on the effectiveness of their defense. But it is fairly obvious that any nation, if pushed to the limit of imminent annihilation, will not hesitate to unleash all the weapons at its disposal to assure mutual destruction, not only of the present attackers, but all others, in priority order, who have ever transgressed the implicit commandment. This is the well established end-game scenario. The corresponding start-game and early-game scenarios are all variations on the largely futile hope that the attackers will just go away.
It seems reasonable to me that there is great advantage to addressing the all-important issue of survival by some means other than the hopeless scenarios that bracket the continuum of choices. And the best means possible, at any evolving stage of the threat, should be sought by an optimization analysis. The so-called "table" that supports the doomsday option should be fitted with a sufficient number of extensions, such that our Republic's defenders have as much flexibility as the attackers grant to themselves. Give the bastards a taste of their own insolence. Maybe then they'll consider just going away. If not, there is always the doomsday option. But why depend on it exclusively?
The enemies of our Republic, including those within our own borders, are unscrupulous in their attack. The defenders, by and large, are encumbered by many scruples, which has a debilitating effect on the effectiveness of their defense. But it is fairly obvious that any nation, if pushed to the limit of imminent annihilation, will not hesitate to unleash all the weapons at its disposal to assure mutual destruction, not only of the present attackers, but all others, in priority order, who have ever transgressed the implicit commandment. This is the well established end-game scenario. The corresponding start-game and early-game scenarios are all variations on the largely futile hope that the attackers will just go away.
It seems reasonable to me that there is great advantage to addressing the all-important issue of survival by some means other than the hopeless scenarios that bracket the continuum of choices. And the best means possible, at any evolving stage of the threat, should be sought by an optimization analysis. The so-called "table" that supports the doomsday option should be fitted with a sufficient number of extensions, such that our Republic's defenders have as much flexibility as the attackers grant to themselves. Give the bastards a taste of their own insolence. Maybe then they'll consider just going away. If not, there is always the doomsday option. But why depend on it exclusively?
No comments:
Post a Comment