[lit-ideas] Re: Ground Zero Mosque's Saudi Patron
- From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 08:55:54 +0700
Eric wrote:
"Five simultaneous nukes in five major cities not an existential
threat? Is Phil really imagining the consequences of such an attack?
Yes it would likely be the end of the US. Improperly responded to, it
would be the end of all countries."
Despite my ability to imagine a great many scenarios that bring about
the end of all countries, I still do not believe that a terrorist
attack using nuclear weapons constitutes an existential threat. The
ability to imagine a state of affairs, for example that the invasion
of Iraq would be greeted with cheering and flowers, does not make that
state of affairs probable or reasonable.
What reasons do I have to support my belief? Despite the terrible
loss of life, as well as the damage to property and the economy, the
fundamental elements that support the functioning of the U.S. as a
state would remain. There would still be a constitution and a legal
system. There would still be a political process, at many different
levels, for representing the citizens of the U.S., the legislating of
new laws and the executing of laws and policies. There would still be
law enforcement agencies to ensure law and order in the aftermath.
There would still be a military and chain of command capable of
projecting its power to a degree that would ensure deterrence against
any other nation wanting to take advantage of the situation. There
would still be many people who could go about their daily lives doing
many of the same things they did previously. There would still be the
many political and social relationships that construct the political
and social identities of Americans.
A terrorist nuclear attack does not represent a broad enough threat to
the U.S. to make it an existential threat. It cannot destroy or
replace the institutions and traditions that support the functioning
of the U.S. state. Compare this kind of attack to the role of the
Taliban in Afghanistan or Pakistan, or even the drug cartels in parts
of Mexico, where these groups are able to either stop the government
from functioning or go so far as replacing the government. In my
opinion, these groups represent existential threats to their
governments. Al Qaeda, despite the terrible damage it might be able
to inflict, does not.
Now Eric obviously disagrees, but he hasn't explained why he disagrees
beyond stating that he can imagine certain outcomes following a
nuclear attack. I hope he doesn't expect that we should be convinced
by imaginative constructions and so I look forward to hearing more.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
