During Magnusson's insurrection:
"Each fleet swept aside any garrison vessels, which it always outnumbered and outgunned. Thereupon a world lay under threat of nuclear bombardment from on high." (p. 278)
But would Magnusson or his officers order nuclear bombardment of any planet let alone of an Imperial one? Such an act would immediately invalidate the Olafists as legitimate saviours of the Empire from its "succession crisis." Asimov did make a valid point in one of his later Foundation novels. Someone wondered how Earth had become so radioactive. It was suggested that this state of the planet might have been artificial. When the suggestion met with initial incomprehension, it was suggested further that a number of nuclear explosions might have been initiated deliberately as an act of war. This suggestion was then dismissed as impossible. In the whole of Galactic history, only one Admiral had raised such an idea and he was immediately lynched by his own men. (I am quoting from memory but have got the gist of it right.) Obviously, futuristic sf can be used to comment on the here and now. Obviously also, massacres of civilian populations are a current issue.
35 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't believe Asimov's scenario! First, because there are going to be times when it's legitimate to use nuclear weapons, as in combats between space fleets, or in using low yield tactical nukes for strictly military purposes, as we see the Empire doing in "Outpost of Empire." Secondly, human beings are amply capable of being ruthless enough to use nukes indiscriminately.
Recent news of massacres? Too true!!!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But we might be able to make the use of instruments of mass destruction unthinkable. Nuclear weapons have not been re-used since 1945. We might be able to establish a consensus that keeps it that way.
On the other hand, we know of certain heads of state who might be crazy enough to press the button and terrorists might eventually nuke some major city sometime. As long as the technology exists and as long as the world remains in the state it is, this is one of several existential threats.
Paul.
Paul: the reason that nuclear weapons haven't been used since 1945 is that people are afraid of retaliation in kind, basically. Secondarily because nuclear weapons aren't really very useful save as a deterrent.
(The US didn't have enough of them before the early 1950's to determine the outcome of a war with the USSR, btw. The USSR had overwhelming conventional predominance, the USA had enough nuclear weapons to probably destabilize the Soviet regime.)
Nuclear weapons are wonderful as a -deterrent-, but nearly useless as a -weapon-, unless you're in sole possession of them and using them against someone who doesn't have them and who you plan to totally overthrow anyway.
That precisely describes the one occasion on which they've been used.
For example, note that Egypt, despite really disliking Israel, hasn't fought them since 1973.
In 1973, they became aware that a) Israel had nuclear weapons (only a few, back then; hundreds now), and that b) the result of a nuclear weapon exploded at the base of the Aswan Dam would be a wall of water still 30 feet high and traveling at 60 miles an hour when it reached the outer fringes of the Nile Delta.
(Estimated casualties over 95% of Egypt's population).
The Israelis had let them know that, and that they had attack planes with nuclear weapons ready to go for Aswan.
The knowledge that someone has a loaded pistol socketed in your ear is a great argument for coexistence.
Kaor, Paul!
I believe Stirling's comments above adequately answers your remarks. I would that I don't believe that humans will ever cease from being violent, quarrelsome, and strife torn.
Anything like the United Commonwealths/Interbeing League of Anderson and Dickson's Hoka stories seems very unlikely to arise!
And I do think it's very like terrorists like the Hamas scum would love to get their hands on nukes! Maybe from Iran.
Ad astra! Sean
Such an Israeli nuclear attack on the Aswan Dam would be an act of genocide.
Paul: so? So what?
When it's "us or them", you chose them, if you're not psychologically warped and self-hating.
Let's put it this way: my father's family has been in Newfoundland since 1800, when my many-times-great-granfather arrived as a surgeon on a RN frigate that dropped him off with the wounded and apparently completely forgot about him and them.
When Europeans arrived, the tribe inhabiting Newfoundland (doubtless having evicted the previous possessors) was the Beothuk.
The last Beothuk died in captivity in 1823.
There is no Beothuk problem in Newfoundland.
(I have a faint trace of Beothuk ancestry, btw, according to family legend confirmed by DNA analysis.)
Well, I would not agree either to the use of a nuclear device or to the killing of over 95% of a country's population - but I am unlikely ever to be in a position where I could influence such a decision either way.
Kaor, Paul!
You are still missing the point. If your people's backs are to the wall and the choice boils down to them or your enemies, you will do what it takes to ensure your country's survival. It does not mean Israel would like blowing up the Aswan dam, only that it was necessary.
Btw, there has been no wars between Egypt and Israel since 1973, so nuclear deterrence can work!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Was Israel's back ever to the wall in its dealings with Egypt? I don't think there is often a case where either we destroy someone else's population or they destroy ours?
Paul.
Sean,
OK. I was alive but not taking much notice in '67 or '73. Israel was created by means which caused much opposition to it and that opposition still exists. The Israelis seem to just accept that that opposition exists and to engage in perpetual conflict with it. They are massively backed by the US whatever they do, including illegal occupations. How long will this last? it is a recipe for perpetual conflict, not peace.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Disagree. You overlook how the founders of Israel, as the British Mandate neared its end in 1947-48, were willing to accept a very unfavorable partition awarding Israel only the Tel-Aviv/Jaffa coast and the Negev region. A compromise rejected by the Arabs, who arrogantly thought they would exterminate the despised Jews.
Again, wrong, as regards "opposition." The real problem is the fanatical hatred so many Muslims have for Jews. You cannot reason with enemies who want to kill you. All you can do is stayed prepared for war and be on your guard.
If you want peace prepare for war, as Flavius Vegetius wrote!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Surely there was some ethnic cleansing at the start of Israel? Surely some of their occupations and settlements are illegal? Why does the US back them up with so much armament? Criticism of Israel is way more than fanatical Muslim anti-Semitism. That is not the real problem.
Paul.
Signing off for a while soon.
Kaor, Paul!
Were there Israelis who were nothing but sheer murderers? Yes, there were, but they were also never as numerous or prominent as the similar creatures on the Arab side.
I'm dead sure of one thing, if positions and protagonists were reversed, the Arabs would not be giving Jewish civilians a chance to flee south of what has been declared a combat zone. But that is exactly what Israel has done, giving a chance for a million or more
Gazans to escape. I am not so sure I would have shown that much self control if my people were being massacred by terrorist vermin!
I don't understand this talk about "illegal" occupations and settlements. Who is sovereign over Israel that it can be compelled to answer to somebody, anybody, for its acts? No one!
Disagree, the real problem is Muslim hatred of Jews, jihadism, and sharia supremacism.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I thought the occupations were illegal under international law. No doubt this is disputable.
Paul.
There is a criticism I have seen, not of the Palestinians, but of the response of the rest of the Arab world.
This criticism points out that in the forced ethic displacements of post WWII Europe & post partition India/Pakistan, the refugees were welcomed & found homes, often the homes of people of the other ethnicity who had been exiled.
In the case of Israel/Palestine, many Palestinians fled the regions taken by Israael & many Jews fled the rest of the Middle East, but the Palestinians were NOT welcomed in to Arab countries and allowed to live in the confiscated ex-Jewish homes.
It seems that most Arabs/Muslims want the Palestinians to suffer and be a perpetual unhealed wound.
Paul: in 1947, the Yishuv (the Jewish community im Mandate Palestine) accepted the Partition Resolution.
The Arabs didn't, and attacked with the -stated- aim of killing or driving out all the Jews.
Note that large numbers of Arabs survived in places under Jewish control, and no Jews at all survived in places under Arab control.
So, were some Arabs driven out? Yeah, some were. In self-defense; the Israelis couldn't tolerate hostile populations at their back.
After 1948, about an equivalent number of Mizrahi Jews were driven out of the Arab countries, and many came to Israel.
Population exchanges -- Greeks and Turks in the 1920's, many others after 1945 -- are often the precondition for peace.
The only place Turks and Greeks kept killing each other after the 1920's was Cyprus, where British imperial power maintained the village-by-village and street-by-street intermixture. As soon as the grip of that power relaxed, the killing flared up again.
(If Cyprus had been handed over to Greece, which nearly happened a couple of times, all the Turks would have been expelled, of course.)
From the 50's until 1974 fighting flared up, declined, flared up again.
Then the Turks invaded, and there was an exchange of populations (ie., mutual ethnic cleansing). Since then... peace.
When two populations hate each other, preaching 'peace and love' is rarely productive.
The alternatives are imperial rule, or movement of population.
And who gets run out of where depends fairly strictly on who wins the war.
13 million Germans were "cleansed" out of eastern Europe after 1945, for example, where most of them had lived for century upon century.
Result? Peace.
Thank you for all these details.
Kaor, Jim and Mr. Stirling!
Jim: I should have mentioned that as well in my comments to Paul, how too many Muslim nations have been unwilling to take in "refugees" who left what became Israel. "Refugees" many of whom soon expected to return after the holy ghazis of Islam exterminated the Jews. Those nations bear a big share of the blame for the Palestinian mess!
Mr. Stirling: And you fleshed out what I was trying to tell Paul. Only two alternatives, really, peace imposed by an imperial power or a rigid separation of hostile peoples.
Ad astra! Sean
Agreed that the Israeli government is not the only one that treats people badly.
Kaor, Paul!
And Israel has the better argument and far the better cause!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There is no argument or cause for treating anyone badly! I have now met many Palestinians who are not pro-terrorist and not anti-Semitic but are opposed to Israeli policies and actions.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Too late, because all attempts made by Israel to offer compromises and make peace were rejected. So I have scant sympathy for them.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Scant sympathy for people being bombed in Gaza?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, I have no sympathy for the Hamas vermin getting shelled and bombed by the IDF. Recall as well how Israel declared northern Gaza a war zone and warned civilians to leave, going south, within 24 hours.
Whether you admit it or not Israel is behaving with more self restraint than many others would have in similar circumstances!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It is not a matter of not admitting but of not agreeing!
There has already been extensive bombing of civilian dwellings (6000 bombs in 6 days) and also of civilians trying to escape on a designated "safe" route. The whole population, including children, is not "Hamas scum." Telling a million people to leave their homes and flee south in 24 hours is way over the top. We do need to criticise both sides.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I say you are wrong. Northern Gaza is now a war zone occupied by the Hamas vermin, who are still trying to attack Israel from there. Meaning it can be rightfully destroyed by the IDF.
And the fact still remains Israel gave non-combatants every reasonable chance to leave.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But what do you say about the 6000 bombs on civilian homes in 6 days?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
You overlook an important point: Israel formally and officially declared war on the Hamas scum almost immediately after the terror attacks. That means all territory controlled by the terrorists, the entire Gaza strip, could rightfully be counterattacked by Israel. Instead Israel limited her counter strikes, so far, to northern Gaza. So I don't give a cuss about that destroyed housing!
The figures keep getting worse! Over 1400 slaughtered by the Hamas vermin! Including 30 US citizens and at least 16 UK citizens.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Or the families in the destroyed housing?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
More than likely those families fled after Israel declared war and warned that northern Gaza would be attacked.
Or the Hamas scum could have forced many non-combatants to stay, not flee, to act as human shields the terrorists would hide behind. They have a history of doing that, the vermin!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It is reported that civilians have been killed in large numbers. But what is happening now is so horrific that I am finding it hard to discuss like this. Maybe later.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
It can be very disillusioning for some that the people they would like to support don't deserve it. Or that people they would prefer opposing deserve to be supported.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It can. That is not the position I am in, however.
Paul.
Sean,
That last comment of yours seems to assume that I am now seeing this issue the way you are. In such a conflictive situation, that cannot be the case! I would like for a while at least just to recognize that there is a major disagreement here and to move on from it.
Paul.
Post a Comment