Aby The Liberal

Dmitri October 3rd, 2007

The human quest for peace is as unending as the human desire for war, evident as both diplomacy and warfare coexisted through the ages. However it is only after the massive loss of lives in the two World Wars and the advent of destructive atomic weapons, did humans come to the realisation that wars will end humankind unless some measures to ensure peaceful co-existence was found. One of such proposals was a World Government backed by imminent thinkers like Albert Einstein, Baha’ullah and Lord Alfred Tennyson.

There were several proposed models of a world government which ranged from a league of nations to the most popular concept, a federal world government with autonomous nation states, not very much unlike Switzerland or United States of today. The league or union of nations are much more of military or political alliances than any serious world government so we will take a federalist type of unified global government into consideration. Although good in theory, a federal world government is highly likely to fail or lead to even further conflicts, due to several ground realities, a couple of them explained below.

The United Nations : Closest one could get to a World Government

One of the biggest roadblocks to a world government is the diversity of humans on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, beliefs, nation and other cultural differences. Proponents of equality would brush off these differences making the universal and often heard statement “all humans are equal”. However reality is evident how far such an ideology goes, all one has to look at are the relentless ethnic, racial or religious conflicts of today. Despite the desire for human equality, the differences cannot be wished away and nor be fought off. They will come in the way when a world government is formed; the diversity of humans will inevitably make some groups feel un-represented or perhaps even victimised, leading to rebellion and conflicts. There will also be ambiguity in judicial and political systems as a system which is acceptable and works for one group may not be so for another. There is good that comes out of a one-size-fits-all approach to legal or political system.

In addition to the limitations arising from unavoidable human differences, a world government would also entail massive administrative difficulties and representation problems, assuming it is a democratic set-up. The larger and more powerful countries like United States, China or Russia will exert their dominance and influence over the under-represented or weaker countries and will usually have their way over them. This will widen the identity gap between races, economic classes and social order which will lead to widespread separatist and rebellion movements as seen in erstwhile Soviet Union. Additionally there will also be administrative difficulties arising from the geographical size of a world nation, which will lead to rampant corruption, violence and social problems in the lesser accessible geographical areas like Africa. Bureaucratic hurdles will increase manifold to keep every group happy which will make the administrative mechanism inefficient and slow.

The above limitations are only a few obvious ones, as experienced at present by countries with large multi-ethnic populations like China, India, Indonesia and erstwhile Soviet Union. In a real World Government, there could be many more unforeseen problems which would crop up which might be even more serious than the above mentioned ones. In such a situation the only way to sustain a world nation would be through suppressing dissent. This will end up reducing a world government to another empire where the powerful rule over the weak. This is one of the primary reasons why no countries had their governments make any serious initiatives or proposals to start a world government. Most of the revolutionaries for world government are driven by unrealistic idealism and sometimes for the sake of radicalism, without much consideration of reality and real implications of a global administration.

The closest we can get to a world government in the present age is United Nations and yet it is hampered by severe drawbacks. Over the years, the UN has turned nothing more than a foreign policy tool for powerful countries, its effectiveness as a world organisation is limited only to weak and powerless countries.

• World Politics , Internationalism , Humanity
• Comments(0)

Aby August 1st, 2007

There is a popular myth is that a US vs Russia nuclear war would put an end to the existence of the human race or to an extreme, end living existence in the world itself. Such hypes are propagated mainly by anti-nuclear groups and Soviet strategists to alarm the masses or put an element of fear among their scientifically unaware enemies. If survival strategies are known and adequate protections are taken to limit casualties, a nuclear holocaust however destructive would yet be survivable.

A musical video pieced together by a YouTube user to simulate the outcome of a nuclear holocaust. (Please don’t click on the video if you are disturbed by brutal scenes)

It is beyond doubt that a full scale US vs Russia nuclear war would be destructive beyond comprehension to both these countries but the total elimination of either of these countries is far from possible. It would cause huge loss in terms of property and human lives on a massive scale, yet the total elimination human habitation is a far cry from reality. A lot of Americans however believe the exaggerated myths about the dangers of a nuclear holocaust which could supposedly ‘bring an end to human existence’. Ignorance about scientific facts and media myths by Hollywood movies (like Day the World Ended or On the Beach) are some of the important factors which contribute to such beliefs. It would be wiser and more sane to look into real facts before blindly believing fictitious myths.

Let us look at some scientific facts about a ‘nuclear holocaust’. If all the nuclear warheads possessed by US and the Soviets during the height of the Cold War were detonated, the average radiation dose per human being on this earth would be well below 10 REM (Roentgen Equivalent Man); as calculated using the data collected from the 500+ nuclear tests done by 9 countries till date. Such a low dose of radiation would cause cancer in less than 2% of the victims exposed to it and the chances of offspring being genetically mutated is extremely small, according to medical findings after the Chernobyl disaster.

Most of the devastating effects of a nuclear explosion would be in the first 72 hours of the blast in the form of high level radiation doses (300+ REM), firestorms which can ignite flammable materials on its way and also the high energy shock waves (overpressure) which can collapse building structures. However the shock waves would cease almost immediately after the blast, the firestorms would subside a few hours later and the radioactive remains would decay out in about 3-10 days depending on the weather. People protected in underground or overground shelters with thick walls and adequate provisions would face little of the shock waves, radiation or fire storms. In a few months, the survivors of a nuclear holocaust will live on, just like they did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A comprehensive and scientific analysis of a real nuclear war scenario has been done by the Nobel Laureate Physicist Eugene P. Wigner. which you can check out using the links provided below.

One popular claim that the U.S. and the Soviet Union have the power to kill the world’s population several times over is based on misleading calculations. One such calculation is to multiply the deaths produced per kiloton exploded over Hiroshima or Nagasaki by an estimate of the number of kilotons in either side’s arsenal. The assumption is that somehow the world’s population could be gathered into circular crowds, each a few miles in diameter with a population density equal to busy downtown Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and then a nuclear warhead would be exploded over the centre of each crowd. The fear mongers exploit the ignorance of people to incite panic and fear among them and this is one such case.

In a real world scenario it would be virtually impossible to assemble equally dense crowds in flat expanses of the world, so that nuclear bombs can be detonated in the centre of the crowd. Furthermore, the casualties of a nuclear war would exponentially decrease with every additional warhead deployed. For example the first 100 warhead dropped on 25 most populous US cities would kill up to 33% of the US population. The next 100 warheads would be able to kill no more than a further 6% and so on, decreasing due to the diversity of land terrain and uneven population distribution. In short, eliminating the entire population of a large country or destroying all habitation is an unattainable feat considering the current and near future nuclear technologies.

The whole of US or Russian nuclear stockpile would be emptied to zero if only the inhabitants of the small Himalayan country of Nepal or the mountainous Colombia were targeted and hit. The terrain of high mountains would shield the effects of the nuclear blasts and vastly increase the amount of warheads required to destroy a given area. Unless weapons which could destabilise the earth’s core are developed, eliminating the whole world would take much more. Even if such weapons were to be developed in the far future - no country, not even US or Russia or China would be mad at such wanton self-annihilation.

More Information and References -

• Nuclear Weapons Myths and Facts - Eugene P. Wigner., Physicist and Nobel Laureate
• Nuclear Weapons and Radiation: Misc Facts - Nuclear Weapons Factoids (A nuclear information site by John Moore)

• Humanity , Myth Busters
• Comments(14)