Thursday, February 25, 2016

Not so Stealthy Attacks Within the Economic Theatre of Operations -- Additional

One of the other things that such economic warfare does to our society is pit one community against another. This is so because one of the more important bits of ammunition in these battles are jobs. That this then makes who wins and who loses, in the context of communities, a zero sum game, at least in large part, is simply collateral damage. It can be limited because, even if one contractor wins the big prize, in this case a new bomber, the losing contractors often pick up consolation prizes in the form of the odd sub-contracted component here and there, but those hardly involve the long term concentration of jobs that the big prize yields.

The fact that this is not really that much of a big revelation shouldn't take away from the importance of the actual misdirection that takes place when companies start campaigns against each other in this fashion. But what, then, are we being misdirected away from? The process that determined that a rather expensive new manned bomber was a major priority in the hierarchy of priorities which we face as a nation.

The fact of the matter is that we might get a great deal more security by spending that kind of material resource on something that would reduce tensions between potential adversaries, rather than in just one more weapon to make it clear we can fight when the tensions come to a self fulfilling conclusion. And what better alternative to reduce, rather than encourage, tensions than starting a program to alleviate a primary source of such tensions; say... an energy source other than fossil fuels?
A program where we say we're going to spend this major lump of money, taken away from a weapons program, and everybody's welcome to join us. Contribute materially as you can but rest assured that you will get an equal share of the output; or at least a share commensurate with your need on some equitable formula; as in, perhaps, a per capita number in relation to your economy. That part is not nearly as important as taking the initiative in the first place.

Doing this probably won't alleviate those tensions right away. But it will be that first, and most important, step down a better path to cooperate rather than compete in both what creates the tensions in the first place, or in what makes it clear that we are only concerned with who will win the final confrontation.

In that last part, however, do we see where the biggest aspect of illusion is at play in this game of misdirection. The illusion that there will be a winner at all in such final confrontations. We teeter on the brink of destruction already within this web of life we call a planet. What could the military mind possibly consider as a "win" when we trigger a final cascade event? No matter how relatively "defeated" a potential enemy might have been as a result

Ad seen on