Are Humans evil?
After the end of the second world war the US planned the active nuclear destruction of Russia and China to secure their dominance in the world as a single superpower national security archive.
The goal was the destruction of infrastructure plus 30% of the population to "break their will". Can a legitimate and non-evil government plan the death of 213 million people? Not because of a direct threat to them, but only to secure their own power from future challenges?
And this terrible crime was not planned by some lunatic banana republic dictator, but by the self-proclaimed protector of the human values.
All of this leads to the question why would we need such a hypocrite organisation at all? No sane person would ever imagine these type of plans and the non-sane ones are not likely to obtain the required power, unless there would be a massive system taping into the resources of the sane majority and funnelling them into their twisted visions for humanity, or in short a national state. As we can see, states are not a blessing that brings peace and prosperity to everyone, they are cold power-hungry monsters that everyday pose a threat to peaceful human coexistence.
When trying to justify the concentration of so much power the only argument that could work is that humans are evil and this power is in fact needed to prevent even worse dangers from the crimes private persons would commit against their peers.
But this is very hard to imagine. Lets take a look at the worst crimes that ever happened in history. These quite clearly are the second world war, including the destruction of the european yews and the crimes of Stalin agains his own population. The list goes on, featuring many wars and dictators for centuries. All of the criminals are state actors.
Certainly there are also lots of crimes done by individuals, especially crimes within the family and robbery. But do we need to live in a world of global tension and the concentration of power in the hand of few monsters just to fight small criminals?
The answer should be clear that this cannot be the optimum solution. The real enemy is central power and in order to advance as humanity we need to find recipes preventing the concentration of power, while still protecting ourselves from small crime. Luckily there is a new promising technology to be used by us. And that are open public blockchains and crypto anarchy.
To the question in your title, my Magic 8-Ball says:
Hi! I'm a bot, and this answer was posted automatically. Check this post out for more information.
thats at least what the mainstream wants us to believe, citing their own crimes to argue for our evilness
I agree with your conclusions that centralized power enables worse crime and that technology can help, but your premise feels like a fundamental attribution error.
It's not clear what their intentions were when making these plans and it is impossible to know. Leadership at the time would have been making the assumption that planning processes like this were compromised, and the Mutually assured destruction strategy also came about during this time. It is equally likely this was intended as a deterrent.
As to your assertion that no sane person would make such plans, I completely disagree. This is exactly the type of plan a sane person wanting to end or prevent large scale conflict would concoct, particularly so close to after the second world war. It's realistic and exact, and thus looks plausible to outside readers like the opposing powerful central authorities/governments they were targeting.
There is some merit to the idea of mutually assured destruction, but in no case does that require a plan for a first strike. A plan for an attack is not a useful deterrent at all, because if it is taken seriously it will cause a first strike by your enemy. It is a very useful deterrent against now nuclear enemies, but not against nuclear armed ones.
It is also not a plan that will prevent large scale conflict, it itself is the reason for more conflict. If you want to end conflict you will use your nuclear arsenal as a deterrent threatened to be used after certain aggressive actions by your enemies. The only thing I could possibly see how this could be put in a a bit better light is as a poker type of bluff. After seeing this plan your 'enemies' must think that you are completely crazy and have no respect for humanity. They will try to act accordingly and live in fear from you. It comes down to a type of blackmail. So instead of saying governments are capable of killing millions of innocent people for their own power, which they are, it comes down to governments are willing to threaten millions of innocent foreigners for their own power.
If a private person threatens to kill others unless they do exactly what he wants, we put that guy in jail pretty quickly. The defence that he was only bluffing, or he was doing it 'for good reasons' will not help much. Governments should not be held to different standards than individuals, all rights they have are inherited from the rights of the consenting individuals under their rule. Anything else means you are giving up your morality.
The document you link rules out a first strike. They closest they come is a "pre-emption" option that was under the assumption they detected an imminent attack. You're describing a nash equillibrium in the second paragraph, and I completely agree that is what it is.
I'm not sure your analogy works. This is threatening violence to be left alone, not abuse others. If there are no police or higher authorities to appeal to, this would also be a rational strategy. You see it in rural communities all the time. Posturing like this is common in human behavior, and has been ritualized in things like the india-pakistan border closings and haka dances.
Good points overall - Have a nice day!
Curated for #informationwar (by @commonlaw)
Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 8,000 Steem Power and 20+ people following the curation trail to support our mission.
Join our discord and chat with 200+ fellow Informationwar Activists.
Join our brand new reddit! and start sharing your Steemit posts directly to The_IW!
Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call Pt 11
Ways you can help the @informationwar
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by frdem3dot0 from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows. Please find us at the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
If you would like to delegate to the Minnow Support Project you can do so by clicking on the following links: 50SP, 100SP, 250SP, 500SP, 1000SP, 5000SP.
Be sure to leave at least 50SP undelegated on your account.
@frdem3dot0 Thank you for not using bidbots on this post and also using the #nobidbot tag!