BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


What does the impending destruction of our way of life in fire and tumult mean to YOU?

 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Thjatsi
09:43 / 05.06.02
The fact that the destruction of nations comprising over a billion people and a long border with China might be internationally de...

So we’ve just moved from, “the impending destruction of our way of life”, to “might be internationally devastating”. Now I’m really confused.

besides, the thought of up to 12 million people dead seems pretty apocalyptic to me.

Twelve million people dead is a tragedy, but it hardly constitutes the apocalypse. The influenza pandemic of 1918 killed a lot more than twelve million, but the world recovered afterwards.

Hell, the worldwide deaths from malaria alone weigh in at over a million per year. Compared to the rest of the bullshit that goes on in the world, I don't see how this is worth a significant portion of my anxiety budget for the month of June.

I would point out, however, that a nuclear war is unlikely to stay in one place for long.

I'm not so sure. The only scenario I can see for this rests on a chain of three rather unlikely events. First, both countries abandon reason and go to war, which progresses to total nuclear warfare. Second, China decides it wants whatever rubble is left, and moves in on the region. Third, the United States decides to start a war over this, which progresses to a second confrontation between two established memebers of the nuclear club. This all seems rather unlikely to me, but if there is another potential scenario that everyone has in mind, I'd like to know about it.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
10:10 / 05.06.02
Thiazi: I'm thinking along the lines of a backlash from the more pout-upon Islamic militant states (Saddam Hussien, anyone?), not to mention a vast cloud of fallout drifting hither and yon. I certainly agree that 12 million is not actually the end of the world as such, although it could be described as "apocalyptic" in a metaphorical way.

And folks: Sorry, but can we please, please not have the whole "you don't think this is the apocalypse? Well, you must be a racist then!" thing? I don't care if it's stated or implied, it's cheap and it sucks. I haven't read anything by this poster that would support such an accusation and if we really are scant weeks away from nuclear disaster, I for one would rather not spend them playing Hunt The Imaginary Bigot.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:13 / 05.06.02
"Destabilising", not "devastating". As in, possibly:

India steps up military activityy in Kashmir. Pakistan responds. Border incidents escalate to conventional warfare. Indian military superiority leads to incursions into Pakistan proper. Pakistan deploys nuclear weapons. India responds in kind. India crippled, Pakistan effectively broken up. Pakistan becomes unstable hide-out for Islamic militant groups, in much the same way Afghanistan used to be. With extensive Chinese support to destablise India, groups within former Pakistan are encouraged to launch cross-border terrorist attacks into Kashmir and Bangladesh. India rattles sabres at China, and steps up military preparations. Death toll rises as international relunctance to foot the bill for reconstructing two nations leads to massive homelessness, starvation, exposure. Indian economy collapses. Pollution of groundwater leads to many fatalities and crop failure. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal now in the hands of various primarily Islamist interest groups. India's nuclear arsenal nominally in control of central government, but without money in govt. coffers Sikh and Hindu nationalist factions in the military start to fragment. On the pretext of stabilising the region, China starts to build up certain groups to form an expansionist power base. Isolated acts of nuclear terrorism lead to mixed nuclear and conventional response by the Chinese military against groups in Pakistan and India. Along with Pakistan and India, China's ability to produce food is blighted by radioactive pollution. Without the vast grain contributions of China and India, world grows increasingly hungry, an effect exarcebated by localised climatic effects across Asia. This further destabilises states between Russia and China, who fear the loss of their sovereignty and prepare their own responses. Warheads are placed in states of readiness, vastly increasing the likelihood of accidents in overstretched and antiquated targeting systems. Assuming that none of them end up launching for the USA, Russia responds with panic to twin threat of Islamist insurgency and Chinese expansionism, Russia occupies many of its former soviet republics in a series of messy, bloody conflicts which may or may not lead ultimately to direct confrontation between China and Russia.

Oh, and meanwhile Islamist extremists take advantage of their new-found wealth to supply Palestinian and Arab groups with the means and materials for godd old nuclear terrorism. Again, Israeli attempts to forestall this will include extending borders and establishing buffer zones, a strategy far more complex when they do alone have nuclear weaponry. Take your pick on that one - escalation could provide an energy crisis to match the grain crisis. Retaliation against "tactical" strikes by Israel drags in the USA, which is now also vulnerable to nuclear terrorism to a far greater extent.

Thiazi, I love you dearly, but you are incredibly North American sometimes...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:19 / 05.06.02
Mordant: the implication (and not a particularly deeply-hidden one) in a lot of the coverage (or complete absence thereof) is that there are plenty of Asians to go around, that this is what happens when you give the bomb to more "primitive" societies and that, on the whole, Byers and Beckham are of far greater moment. To my knowledge, whether or not it is in fact the apocalypse is not the point here, rather the general indifference of the Western media to absolute shitloads of people dying somewhere else where they are used to it.
 
 
Shortfatdyke
10:51 / 05.06.02
and i seem to recall the attitude by many (in general) that the attacks on the wtc and the pentagon were the end of the world.

i would say the people of kashmir, pakistan and india may well be thinking of this as an apocalypse.
 
 
suds
10:53 / 05.06.02
I have a lot of dear friends in india and I am praying for them every day.
 
 
Cat Chant
14:03 / 05.06.02
I was at a party on Friday night where my friend T got into a fight with a boy over science fiction, and I just turned round every five minutes to shout at said boy who was claiming moral superiority because, rather than watching Star Trek, 'at least I face up to the possibility of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan'.

He took exception to me putting my fingers in my ear and shouting "La la la, I can't hear you" and accused me of being an escapist, but couldn't explain to me how mouthing off in a curry house at someone's birthday party was a more effective way of dealing with the situation than watching Blake's 7. So I got very cross and shouted at him a lot.

Other than that, no, I'm not really that affected personally. After 9/11 I felt like "This just makes it all the more urgent to theorize the Roman civil war!" and currently I'm copy-editing a book called Deconstruction Reading Politics and wishing to fuck I could summon up any belief that any of this wank was a worthwhile endeavour in the circs.

My VCR is broken, otherwise I would be watching Blake's 7 RIGHT NOW.
 
 
drzener
18:58 / 05.06.02
Deva, I know you lurve Blakes 7 but I don't think I realised quite how much.
 
 
bitchiekittie
19:46 / 05.06.02
I think part of the reason people (like me) can be rather blase about the whole thing is that its almost impossible to imagine someone really saying, essentially "hell, fuck it, toast 'em all, and us with 'em". yes, of course I realize that evidence of such thought processes are all around us on a daily basis. but on such a large scale!

its easy to forget, or block out, the hideous cruelty that we are capable of. the incalculable suffering of the holocaust, and the proof that our country isnt exempt from such atrocities written in the horrific deaths of the citizens of hiroshima and nagasaki. and every day something else in the papers to remind us of how awful we can be to one another, for religion, for power, greed, lust, some stupid ideals.

and people wonder why I dont pay any fucking attention to world events. the bile would choke me to death
 
 
Shortfatdyke
19:56 / 05.06.02
when i was about 13 or 14 i got into cnd in a big way. it was the early 80s and the situation was pretty bad between the then ussr and the usa. i read up a lot about the nagasaki and hiroshima bombs and was doing political fanzines and stuff.... basically i could think of nothing else for a long, long time. i had nightmares, when i was awake i would 'see' the bomb going off and the white flash. so i was pretty obsessed with it. which doesn't mean that i can possibly imagine what the reality would be, but some of that intense fear is creeping back. although now i'm far more angry.
 
 
Thjatsi
13:39 / 10.06.02
"Destabilising", not "devastating". As in, possibly:

My mistake.

Pakistan becomes unstable hide-out for Islamic militant groups, in much the same way Afghanistan used to be.

Considering that a lot of the less than grounded religious groups like the Taliban are coming out of Pakistan, a nuclear war may cut down on the number of crazy people. Note that I am by no means stating that this is worth the deaths of millions of people, nor am I saying that it doesn't matter because they aren't similar to me in appearance or philosophy. I would go to great lengths to prevent this war if it would help, but in the end it isn't my decision.

Death toll rises as international relunctance to foot the bill for reconstructing two nations leads to massive homelessness, starvation, exposure.

Maybe I'm being naive, but I would think that both our countries would be giving a significant amount of aid if this tragedy takes place.

Pakistan's nuclear arsenal now in the hands of various primarily Islamist interest groups.

However, the probability of this happening is inversely proportional to the probability that both regions will be destabalized. Total nuclear warfare has a greater chance of destabalization, but a lesser chance of these weapons falling into the hands of people who want to kill us.

Anyway, while I will admit the scenario you've outlined is a potential problem, there are also way too many variables at this point for me to lose any sleep over this.

Thiazi, I love you dearly, but you are incredibly North American sometimes...

Haus, as I've stated elsewhere, you're easily one of the most brilliant people I've ever encountered on the internet. However, I think both you and Shortfatdyke need some vacation time in a country where it doesn't rain so goddamn much.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
13:49 / 10.06.02
"Considering that a lot of the less than grounded religious groups like the Taliban are coming out of Pakistan, a nuclear war may cut down on the number of crazy people."

God almighty. Who is also presumably hanging out in Pakistan with all the crazy people, yeah? Who are these 'less than grounded (airborne?) religious groups', and what are 'groups like the Taliban'? The taliban (who aren't by the way, that easily and identiably stable an entity) Where, in short is your justification for this rubbish?

"Note that I am by no means stating that this is worth the deaths of millions of people, "

Glad to hear it. What are you stating, then, that if millions of people are going to die, it might as well be somewhere with a few crazy people... Cause that logic couldn't by any stretch apply to the US, or Britain. Naaaaaa. Cause *we* live in those countries...
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
14:04 / 10.06.02
sorry, wildly off topic, that. It is a big thing, think I'm wandering around with an underlying feeling of pointlessness - the kind of thing that Deva's describing - the 'well if a couple of countries are edging towards going up in smoke, makes doing anything pretty meaningless'.... and am trying to kick this and *do* stuff, connect with people.

A good sideffect is that I'm keeping in much better touch with my family, to find out what's going on in India, how family are feeling , and because my stepmum served in the war in Kashmir in the 70s, so knows alot about the military build-up/history...

weird.
 
 
Naked Flame
14:05 / 10.06.02
Maybe I'm being naive, but I would think that both our countries would be giving a significant amount of aid if this tragedy takes place.

Yep, you're being naive. They'd certainly pledge a lot of aid. If the current example of Afghanistan is anything to go by then they wouldn't follow through on the deal. Powerful nations like you to think they're altruists. This is in fact not the case.
 
 
Thjatsi
14:33 / 10.06.02
Who are these 'less than grounded (airborne?) religious groups', and what are 'groups like the Taliban'?

In this case, I am defining "crazy", "less than grounded", and "groups like the Taliban" as, "people who want to kill me". Please excuse my use of these rather subjective terms.

What are you stating, then, that if millions of people are going to die, it might as well be somewhere with a few crazy people... Cause that logic couldn't by any stretch apply to the US, or Britain. Naaaaaa. Cause *we* live in those countries...

Not at all. What I am stating is that not all of the results of India and Pakistan engaging in nuclear war have to be negative from the standpoint of international terrorism or the apparent impending destruction of our way of life in fire and tumult.

By the way, I'm becoming mildly annoyed with the fact that my position of, "This isn't worth panicing over" is consistently being construed as "kill all the darkies".

If the current example of Afghanistan is anything to go by then they wouldn't follow through on the deal.

I don't think a strong analogy can be drawn betwen the aftereffects of a nuclear war and the current situation in Afghanistan.
 
 
Fist of Fun
15:03 / 10.06.02
Thiazi - I can see your point that a nuclear war between India & Pakistan does not necessarily constitute an apocalypse. It might constitute a holocaust (death by fire) or decimation of the human race (over 1/10th of the population) but it wouldn't necessarily actually end all human life.

However, and I am not an expert in nuclear war, but isn't there just a possibility that even if the direct immediate damage was limited to the sub-continent, that the radiation effects would damage considerably more than merely directly adjacent areas? Chernobyl was one reactor, which didn't even suffer total disintegration and was mostly intact after its explosion, but the radiation spread was enormous. Remember - it was first noticed by the West up because *Sweden* started getting readings on the Geiger counter that were scaring their scientists to hell. If we have, say, 20 ground blast dirty nucleur warheads set off by each side I imagine we could see the whole of Asia screwed up.

And even if you don't notice the biological effects of that - I imagine that you would notice the complete meltdown in the world economy. Depression, smeshion, anion. Basically, it's good bye Starbucks and skinny muffin for breakfast, hello iodine pill.

Oh yes, and the estimates of 12 million dead. First off, this is for the first day of such a conflict. Secondly, who makes up this shit? I mean, there is no way we can be sure that this would be the figure, or if it would be way higher or way lower.
 
 
Fist of Fun
15:06 / 10.06.02
That last bit about the 12 million - that was just a general comment, and nothing to do with Thiazi. And I still cannot spell 'nuclear'.
 
 
Thjatsi
15:46 / 10.06.02
However, and I am not an expert in nuclear war, but isn't there just a possibility that even if the direct immediate damage was limited to the sub-continent, that the radiation effects would damage considerably more than merely directly adjacent areas?

It's difficult to say what the fallout effects would be from a nuclear exchange. This depends on which direction the wind is blowing that day, the number and size of weapons used, and where they are used.

Chernobyl was one reactor, which didn't even suffer total disintegration and was mostly intact after its explosion, but the radiation spread was enormous.

Chernobyl is a really hairy situation, as far as figuring out what the negative results actually were. One side says that no fatalaties resulted outside of the immediate area, and Europe basically went apeshit for no reason at all. The other side says that there were countless cancer deaths throughout the continent. These claims differ strongly enough that I know one side is definitely misrepresenting the data in a dishonest manner. However, I'm not in the mood to spend twenty hours sifting through the bullshit when I could be doing better things with my time.

And even if you don't notice the biological effects of that - I imagine that you would notice the complete meltdown in the world economy. Depression, smeshion, anion. Basically, it's good bye Starbucks and skinny muffin for breakfast, hello iodine pill.

Yeah, based on my very limited knowledge of economics, I have to agree that the ripple effect would be really nasty.
 
 
alas
20:39 / 11.06.02
Thiazi--I know you're not saying "kill all the darkies," but (ahh, you knew that was coming, dincha?) you do sound a bit like the Marketplace morning report, which whenever I mistakenly turn on the radio at that time goes something like:

"10 million killed by flood in Bangladesh; how will that affect your stock portfolio? and in travel news, Death and Destruction in Columbia mean fire-sale prices on Airline Tix!!!"

On the other hand, I do understand: part of what is going on here is that I grew up in the 1970s really feeling the threat of nuclear war. Ronald Fucking Reagan had his finger on the button, and he couldn't have told a tv from a toaster! That level of absurdity, to me, makes it difficult to get MORE upset about India/Pakistan, certainly, than I am about Bush, Baby's, flouting of International Arms Treaties and flippant use of the term "cold war relics."

And at Chernobyl itself the death toll is No Joke; the place is dead and deadly, still.

And for the second time I'll suggest that everyone read this article by Arundahti Roy
Here's a quotation: "My friends and I discuss Prophecy, the film of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the dead bodies choking the river, the living stripped of their skin and hair, we remember especially the man who just melted into the steps of the building and we imagine ourselves like that, as stains on staircases.

My husband's writing a book about trees. He has a section on how figs are pollinated, each fig by its own specialized fig wasp. There are nearly 1,000 different species of fig wasps. All the fig wasps will be nuked, and my husband and his book. A dear friend, who is an activist in the anti-dam movement in the Narmanda Valley, is on indefinite hunger strike. Today is the twelfth day of her fast. She and the others fasting with her are weakening quickly. They are protesting because the government is bulldozing schools, felling forests, uprooting handpumps, forcing people from their villages. What an act of faith and hope. But to a government comfortable with the notion of a wasted world, what's a wasted value? Terrorists have the power to trigger a nuclear war. Non-violence is treated with contempt. Displacement, dispossession, starvation, poverty, disease, these are all just funny comic strip items now. Meanwhile, emissaries of the coalition against terror come and go preaching restraint. Tony Blair arrives to preach peace - and on the side, to sell weapons to both India and Pakistan."


Those fig wasps are a big thing for me. An Arundahti Roy's a big thing for me.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:40 / 12.06.02
Meanwhile, some pussy little breeder bomb in Washington, with maybe 2,000 casualties, which hasn't even been built yet, and all of a sudden it's panic stations.

Tchah.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply