OF MASSSIVE USELESSNESS
cant help but be bemused at the ingenuity of some of the
so called Iraqi terrorists that are trying to undermine the coalitions
efforts to rebuild the country by constantly pin pricking
the US and other armed forces. To use a donkey and cart with a
camouflaged rocket launcher under the canvas as a lethal and effective
weapon is very effective..
I would put
it under the heading of cheapest and deadliest weapon of
destruction. Just think, what did it actually cost to build this piece
of armoury, compared to just one of the multitude of four, six or eight
wheeled monsters belonging to the US army that are being blown up every
day. Not to mention the value of one of their many helicopters that
has been brought down by a donkey rocket. No sir, I realise
that it is no laughing matter, but it proves one point and am sure that
it has been brought up many times by a plethora of experts. The new
world war that we are now faced with is between twenty-first century
military might and medieval lethal entrepreneurs, read al Qaeda warmongers.
(And what of the fate of the poor traumatised donkey that actually
survived the ordeal, burned and stunned - neglected by all and sundry?
It is the first time in history, I believe that weaponry has become
obsolete although it is technically way ahead of it time. The trouble
is that the politicians have not yet woken up to the fact. If we go
back in history, any young bright schoolboy today knows that when gunpowder
was discovered and guns were invented (though not at the same time),
it would, when combined,be the end of the sword and the bow and arrow.
The same applied to the armoured vehicle versus the horse and the wooden
warships facing iron clad shooting ships. We could go on and on into
modern day warfare such as long range missiles and radar tricking aircraft,
not to mention the mass destructive nuclear and bombardment horrors.
But all this was based on a set of rules laid down by countries or regions
that had decided under a halo of mutual hatred to destroy each other.
(MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction.) It is as old as prostitution and
equally deplorable. What the world is faced with now is a creeping weed
of hit and run do-it-yourself' suicide murderers that defy
all the laws of historical warfare. Yet they are able to create far
worse devastation than a couple of nukes dropped on specific locations.
The whole bloody ballgame has turned upside down. Lets take a
look at a few weapons or even military outfits of mass uselessness.
How about the so-called EKV or exo-atmospheric kill vehicle? What is
it? Its the latest model of shield protection devised by the scientific
gurus in the US in case of a nuclear or other missile attack aimed at
the USA. Way back in 1983, Ronald Reagan spoke of Star Wars
as being the next major threat to his country and the world. Sure enough,
in those days China and Russia were still considered as inflicting mass
destruction via the space spectrum. Ever since, every US President,
has been urging American scientists to devise a defence system that
would virtually create a protective umbrella over the whole country.
In todays world although pretty ingenious and mighty expensive
it is completely useless. Sure enough, Iran, Korea and maybe one or
two of the rogue states could eventually push a button and
send the lethal darts California or New Yorks way. But before
this could happen, our present creeping monster of Islamic fundamentalist
terrorism would have activated a few suicide acts in different parts
of the world and created a far worse problem for the world and USA than
any nuclear missile threat. Why? Because by then, the world economy
would be in a filthy mess, and the USA completely isolated from everybody
in their protective cocoon. We would all be dying of starvation because
consumerism would have been wiped out! And the cost of such action.
I follow on to the recent talks going on within the European Union about
forming a EU common defence policy. Behind the scene, Britain, France
and Germany had been talking, as usual, of setting the grounds for defence
that could be sold to the rest of Europe in due course. Typical scenario
within Europe of decisions taken by the big boys whilst the others wait
and see. But the question that always crops up is what to do, or better
still how to integrate European defence whilst still maintaining a powerful
military presence through NATO. In other words, how to be truly European
but at the same time call on Uncle Sam when the going gets tough! From
a world perspective, what are we looking at anyway? The United Nations
through the mandates of the Security Council are meant to supply UN
troops whenever hot spots blow up in the world. The latest example was
the ousting of President Taylor in Liberia and the deployment of Nigerian
troops under a UN banner. Rally round the flag boys! Nobody took count
of the other side of the coin during which over 1000 Nigerian troops
have already died trying to put out African fires. Far more than the
coalition body counts in Iraq so far.
If we move on to NATO, the original agreement basically is that if any
country within the Organisation is threatened or attacked, NATOs
might, read USA, would come to the rescue. Is this still valid in the
light of what is emanating from within the Middle East? So what about
a strictly European defence policy? Who would Europe, on its own be
afraid of; the Big Bad Wolf? How the hell does this fit in to the overall
world picture? I mean, add the whole civilized world defence system
up and it is one huge bundle of money coming from taxpayers who are
yet to be given real protection against terrorism.
what is the bottom line? Once again it amounts to cost. American military
might is, pardon the pun mighty expensive. A few African foot soldiers
are not. But then again, the strife in Liberia was also different. Civil
war is cheap, money wise, to quell. Nuclear war could be horrible and
devastating but predictable with a finite cost. Drop a nuke and a sector
of the earth is wiped out. The fall out will take care of the surrounding
areas. The figures can be worked out as a one off cost. But, if the
world continues to experience a campaign of suicide bombings, devastation
tends to take place at intermittent intervals, but the economic shock
waves will slowly and lethally extend right across the globe. So how
do you put a price tag on invisible terrorism? You cant. But then,
can anybody really count anyway?
Note: At the time of writing this essay the news came through that
Saddam Hussein had finally been captured. This is good news for everyone
in Iraq and elsewhere, but in my view does not change the world threat
of Islamic fundamental terrorism.
© James Skinner. December 15 th 2003.
Dream of World peace and War in the 21st Century
Spain in a New Bottle Part One of this series
Migration - Part Two
From Pacman to Gameboy
How to Beat Your Wife
in !0 Lessons
Are Our Oceans Dying? Where's
all rights reserved