The More Things Change…
Posted By Russ Emerson on August 6, 2004 at 8:57 pm
I’m re-reading one of my favorite books, Men of War, the second volume of the There Will Be War series edited (and in large part written) by Jerry Pournelle. Dr. Pournelle is more than a “mere” science fiction author — he’s also a respected academic with a large body of work to his credit, including a key role in the formulation of the Strategic Defense Initiative.
Now out of print, but still available through used-book outlets, the book consists of non-fiction essays and short fiction stories, and was published at a time when the Soviet danger was at or near its maximum. Twenty years later, it is fascinating to read what some very smart people had to say about the nature of threats against us. Take, for example, the following passages, written by Dr. Stefan Possony in 1968 about “Technological War”:
The United States is at war…. Except for financial sacrifices, many citizens of the West and subjects of Communism may be unaware of the conflict until the decisive moment, if it ever comes, is upon them. For all that, the Technological War is most real, and we must understand its nature, for it is decisive. Our survival depends on our not losing this battle.
The nature of both technology and the enemy dictate this state of warfare. The U.S.S.R. is a power-oriented dictatorship, whose official doctrine is Communism: that is, a chiliastic movement which seeks to liberate — we would say enslave — the entire earth.
Written in ’68, but sounds familiar, no? For “communism” substitute “Islamofascism,” and for “U.S.S.R.” substitute “Muslim part of the world” or “caliphate” or the synonym of your choice.
We can be thankful, at least, that major new technologies are not being developed by our current enemies, though they are perfectly happy to use our technology when they can get it. What we do have to worry about, however, is new methodologies used to employ old technology.
They can’t build airliners — they can only crash them into targets, but that’s bad enough.
Further along, we read:
Moreover, aggressive actions may occur because of internal pressures, especially in a period when faith in Communism as an ideological system is declining, and it is possible, though unlikely, that aggressive initiatives will be taken by non-Communist states. Despite all those implications the U.S.S.R. is the single most important and strongest opponent of the United States. Consequently, American strategists must primarily be concerned with Soviet strategy and the threat posed by the U.S.S.R.
In my humble estimation, I think this paragraph would apply equally to Islamofascism and to the Peoples’ Republic of China. China is a threat — and they are investing heavily in technology. Thus far they’ve mainly stolen it (for example, see the recently settled Cisco Systems lawsuit against Huawei) but in short order, they will be developing new technologies to compete with and ultimately defeat the West.
[I’ve often said that I think we’ll be in a shooting war with China in the not too distant future — I started, ten or fifteen years ago, by suggesting 2025 as a “due date,” but I’m now less optimistic about the number of years we have remaining. Thanks a lot, Clinton & Schwartz. Bastards.]
It must be emphasized that to the committed Communist, there are no ideological reasons for not exploiting advantages over the capitalists. The only possible objections are operational. No communist can admit that a capitalist government is legitimate; thus there can be no “mercy” to a vulnerable capitalist regime.
Again, this applies rather accurately to the current state of Islamic radicalism. Our governments, institutions and religions are, to their way of thinking, illegitimate. The only options they leave for us to choose from are death, dhimmitude, or victory.
The entire essay (more precisely, a chapter from the book The Strategy of Technology) is well worth reading, but may be difficult to acquire. Fortunately, an updated edition of the complete book is available online at Dr. Pournelle’s site. This is not light reading, folks. But valuable, very valuable.
Comments