I Should Be Studying

I should be studying (actually writing); instead, I'm posting to get a few things off my chest. (Cue sighs.) During the past few minutes, I've thought about several things that I thought deserved to be written down. Because I tend to lose random pieces of paper with "important" lists and musings on them, I've decided to post some of my musings here, where their insightfulness or short-sightedness will be forever accessible to our vast audience. ("Blogging: Never have so many said so little to so few." I'm not sure who said that first, but I like to think that the "so little" part doesn't apply to things people say about their kids.) Warning: This has nothing to do with our children.

Sometime during the next century (or two), there will be a war fought over weather. As more countries begin to "seed the clouds" to make it rain, and"fight global warming" to make it cool (like temperature-wise, not radical-wise), the effects of some countries' meddling will rain upon some other countries' parades. Other countries will not like it. War will ensue. What I find interesting is not the question whether people will or won't fight over the weather (they will), but whether people will fight for cold weather or hot weather, wet weather or dry weather, etc. In the end, people will probably fight for cold, hot, wet, or dry, when what they really want is a mix of all four. If this sounds like modern politics (a fight for extremes when what most people want is the middle ground), it is.

The future of warfare is not bigger, more destructive weapons; it's much more subtle. Countries with nuclear weapons don't attack with them (at least not with the intent being to kill large numbers of people). Countries without nuclear weapons strive to get them, and some, if not most that seek them eventually will get them (sorry Israel).

It's difficult to say what will happen when the majority of countries possess nuclear weapons. It seems that it will be in all countries' best interests to band together against the use of any nuclear weapons, lest most of mankind be wiped off the earth in a volley of retalliatory strikes. The most historically significant advancement in warfare will either become, in effect, a non-issue (if countries don't attack with nuclear weapons), or most of us (at least those of us living in countries that possess nuclear weapons) will be obliterated by it. In either case, there's no need to waste time worrying about it.

Back to the future: religion's grip on the human (and robotic?) mind will loosen; global cooperation among nations, even those now described as super-powers, will be the norm; wars will be fought over more rational and meaningful disagreements (like border disputes, trade wars, etc.); countries will avoid overt warfare because it is wildly expensive and because killing children (while overtly waging war) is both seemingly unavoidable and widely unpopular. Countries will still look for ways to ensure their survival by threatening the survival of others, but will do so only when they can not be held responsible. Think ant treatment: If you spray with Black Flag one hundred ants in the house, you've temporarily solved your problem, but until you treat with something that the ants take back to their nest to kill the colony, your ant problem will return year after year. Leaders of countries found to be waging overt war without the consent of the global majority will be deemed "uncooperative"; such leaders will be swiftly punished, removed, and replaced by cooperative leaders - this will be the primary use of overt warfare.

Of leaders, they will be chosen democratically. The days of the dictator are over. While individual countries will still harbor internal debates about the proper role and size of government, the primary division on the international stage will be between those countries pushing capitalism and those countries pushing socialism. The days of the communists are over.

Of armies, they will be smaller. Once borders are secured (they will be), and overt warfare becomes disfavored and more mechanized (it will), fewer troops will be needed. Because the economic disparity present between rich nations and poor nations has diminished, "cooperative" countries will be more able to assert effective control over uncooperative countries in their region.

Of subtle warfare, it's difficult to say what it will look like: Pollution seems too easily traceable; the same goes for internet and other electronic warfare; perhaps epidemic-disease-warfare would be effective, but I suspect countries will become more vigilant about screening those who intend to enter. I can't think of many things that could be done in good faith (or at least apparently so) domestically but which would nonetheless have serious negative repercussions abroad; weather manipulation is one such thing.

It's late, and I'm already sure to catch flak from Jen for posting this, so I'll stop. Beware, though, there may be similar ramblings in the future.