TIME TO TALK ABOUT . . . DOOMSDAY

     
   
      DOOMSDAY!
      What a word -- so arresting, the kind that just has to be printed in boldface capital letters. With an exclamation point too, of course.
      I mean, it's about as dramatic a word as there can be. In English -- in any language.  But perhaps best in English, because in English it is terse, concise, sums it all up on one word.
      For example, in French it takes four words to say "doomsday" -- that is, "Jour du jugement dernier." German states it in three words,  "Der jungste tag." Spanish says it in five,  "el dia del juicio final." Italian in four, "il giorno del Giudizio."
      In those languages, the meaning of their equivalent to the English "Doomsday" is somewhat different from the meaning generally given it today in the English-speaking world. The French, German, Italian and Spanish terms mean "day of judgment," and that is a religious concept.

      IN CHRISTIANITY, Judgment Day is the day of the promised Second Coming of Christ.
      This is a current subject, because in recent years and months, we've heard much about various wild-eyed fundamentalist preachers, mostly in the U.S.A., issuing their Doomsday prophesies. But, so far, those deadly dates have come and gone, nothing has happened, and the preachers are forced to go back to the drawing board to conjure up new forecasts of doom. The next doom date, I believe, is Dec. 21, 2012, said to be related to ancient Mayan belief . . . or not. Anyway, it seems that, if you believe this, folks, we've got only half a year left.
      The theory held by the modern-day Christian prophets is that Doomsday will see the separation of those of us who have been good and just from those of us who have been wicked and evil.
      Those who have been good and just and Christian -- this is strictly necessary, it is essential that they be Christian -- are to be elevated to paradise, with its gold-paved streets and curbs. But the wicked and evil, the unrepentant sinners, and the non-Christians, will be cast into an unimaginably large fiery, sulphurous lake or pit, where they will remain in excruciating pain and torment for eternity. (Hmm . . . am I detecting something of a Nazi flavor in all this fiery pit business?)

       BUT I DIGRESS. WHAT I REALLY want to examine here is a Doomsday concept tied into today's geopolitical scene, and not to religious versions of Doomsday. My concept is one based on existing military weaponry -- primarily nuclear weapons, and the quantity of them. Plus attitudes of governments controlling them.
      Those weapons are why we have the well-known Doomsday Clock, maintained at the University of Chicago since 1947, signifying the clear and present danger that has faced the world since August, 1945. (The date of the clock's most recent adjustment was Jan. 10, 2012, when the clock was moved from six minutes to five minutes to midnight. Oh -- say, isn't Chicago that "toddlin' town" of song, where much of the nuclear-bomb pioneering was developed?)
      As most people know, but which I mention here as relevant background, the first nuclear weapons to be used, ever, in warfare (and to date, the only ones) were dropped on Japan in early August, 1945, by the U.S. military. These two incredibly massive explosions, a few days apart, but in an instant in each case, they destroyed two cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, along with the lives of scores and scores of thousands of those cities' mostly civilian occupants -- men, women and children, indiscriminately, on orders of the U.S. Commander-in-chief, one Harry S. Truman. (By all reports, Mr. Truman, of Democratic Party persuasion, seems to have gone to his grave with a clear conscience.)
      The nuclear bombs used on those two occasions were primitive by today's nuclear-bomb standards, which produce explosions hundreds, if not thousands of times greater per bomb.   

      THE DOOMSDAY CLOCK WAS the post-Second World War invention of a group of serious scientists, alarmed by the world's large supply of nuclear arms. They were scientists of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
       Their idea was a very good one, and their efforts, along with others by politicians, mainly Russian and American, have brought about reductions in the number of nuclear bombs. Unfortunately, it remains a fact that, practically speaking, these reductions do not bring the numbers down to anyone's comfort level.
      There remain in the world an estimated minimum of 19,000, and perhaps a maximum of 22,000 thermonuclear warheads, enough to destroy all humanity quite a few times over -- and a great many of those warheads are in ready-to-go condition, on "hair-trigger alert," as the military phrase goes.

      IN TODAY'S PARLANCE, THEREFORE, "Doomsday" and "Doomsday Clock" refer to a nuclear doomsday -- one that faces the world through the existence of those warheads, and the simple question springing from this may be put in the following way: Can the leaders of the world's nuclear nations be relied upon to maintain their mental balance and avoid nuclear war in the ongoing, and, I suggest, currently warming "cold" war over the world's energy and other resources?
       If you raise eyebrows over my suggestion of a new cold war, just look at recent events: the U.S.-inspired so-called "shield" in eastern Europe, which Russia sees as aggression and near-intrusion by the U.S.; plus the U.S. naval-military buildup by the U.S. in the Asia-pacific, which China sees as aggression and clear intrusion by the U.S.
       And so we have China and Russia only recently moving into a new mutually protective alliance -- it is mostly economic for the moment, but is looking to more togetherness, including militarily. These events are not terribly comforting insofar as world peace is concerned. The phrases "new arms race" and "a developing armaments buildup" rather easily come to mind on all this. (We must not forget that scads of highly destructive "conventional" arms exist, as well, and are being developed and produced at a quickening pace.)
      Armaments manufacturers have never seen better days for their balance sheets. The world, in short, is bristling with arms (the U.S. holding a massive lead over all other nations as the chief "bristler") probably at levels never seen in all previous history. Did I hear someone ask what armaments are for? To be used, silly.

        AND THEN THERE'S THE POTENTIAL for very bad things in the Middle East. My view is that a terrible conflict over Iranian oil is what's in prospect for the region, involving the U.S. (along with its allies, including a ready-to-launch Israel with its estimated 200 nuclear warheads) against Iran, a nation with immense oil reserves, control over which is firmly desired by "the west." This control can be achieved through nothing less than a regime change in Iran -- and it's hard to see how that can happen except through violence. Whether this might involve nuclear weapons, or not, no one knows.
        The excuse for this war would be the alleged development of nuclear weapons by Iran, whether such development is happening or not (and so far the evidence that it is appears to be non-existent). Still, we keep on hearing about the need for regime change in Iran to prevent that nation from acquiring such weapons. We also keep hearing about the possibility of "surgical" and "pre-emptive"attacks by Israel on those alleged Iranian nuclear development sites. Such attacks, of course, would be a cause of war.
       Well, Iranian leaders have made more than a few threatening statements against Israel, so Israel's concerns are not exactly imaginary. Still, talk and negotiations and agreements are far better than killing in warfare, whether it be nuclear warfare or not. Iran is not stupid, and it is quite aware of the devastation it would face, should it attack Israel.
     
      IF THE U.S. AND ISRAEL AND their allies embark on an attempted military solution to the "Iran problem," the whole Middle East, and perhaps much more of the world -- Russia and China being more or less supportive of Iran -- could be in for the worst conflict since the Second World War.    
       Would nuclear war in the mideast bring "Doomsday" to the world? It most certainly has that potential. This much seems obvious: it would be horrific doomsday for many in the Middle East, with a distinct possibility it could expand rapidly and draw other nations in, with highly unpredictable consequences. Such as the world-wide spread of atmospheric radiation, following any nuclear bombing, and the prospect of such radiation eventually killing multitudes more, and making humanity in general chronically weak, sickly and facing much reduced life-spans through radiation sickness.
        So, I'd say talking about a potential Doomsday is not really as over-the-top as some might suggest.

        I LEAVE YOU WITH A JOLLY 1970 quotation from Colombo's Concise Canadian Quotations (1976 edition), edited by John Robert Colombo; this quotation does not relate to the mideast, but to the question of nuclear war in general.
        "Over the long run," says this quotation, "it does not matter how small the probability of nuclear war is per unit time. It is mathematically demonstrable that, as time goes on, this probability approaches certainty." -- These words were written by J.L. Granatstein, who is a 73-year-old Canadian historian, and especially historian of war, having experienced Canadian Army service for 10 years, 1956-66.
        The only optimistic thing I can say about the quotation is that I still don't know whether anyone has produced, or intends to produce, such a mathematical demonstration as that which he mentions. But perhaps one doesn't need a demonstration, in the light of current circumstances.
        If and when we think about it, we all hope Granatstein was wrong, but are stuck with the uncomfortable feeling that he may well have spoken some serious truth.
                                              ------

        P.S. -- READERS OF ALL OF THE ABOVE might ask such questions as: "What can ordinary citizens do, to stop the insanity?" My answer is, "If you live in a democracy, then you have a vote -- so use it to support those candidates opposing militarism and war" -- and, between and during elections, contact, write letters to, phone, your Member of Parliament, your representative in the provincial or regional legislature, and express your views.   
       P.P.S. -- The issue of militarism and war is a huge one, one of the most urgent problems facing humanity --  facing you and your family, and facing me and my family. Because of this, I will be revisiting the issue from time to time in future Soapbox essays. (Provided, of course, that Doomsday doesn't intervene first. . .)