6 ms·

What exactly are you envisioning here? If not a sacking of the country by terrorist hoards, what exactly are you proposing the parallels between the fall of Ro

by jlgreco 14y ago

What exactly are you envisioning here? If not a sacking of the country by terrorist hoards, what exactly are you proposing the parallels between the fall of Rome and our modern society will be? I can envision terrorist attacks doing major irreversible damage to our society, but only through the fear, spiraling out of control, that they have the potential to cause. A fear so excessive that it could figuratively drive our society off the cliffs of Saipan. Presumably (since you appear to be advocating fear, and since it would be plainly idiotic to suggest a sacking is immenent) you are suggesting a different mechanism. So what is this mechanism?

rayiner 14y ago
With modern technology, you don't need to sack New York to cause tremendous damage. People downplay the magnitude of 9/11, but as I noted somewhere else today, it involved more deaths than Pearl Harbor, and economic damage of almost $100 billion (without accounting for the economic impact on the stock market). Is a terrorist attack ten times stronger inconceivable? An attack on a nuclear power plant could cost into trillions (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/a-nuclear-accident-could-cost-trillions-of-dollars-and-bankrupt-us.html http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/a-nuclear-accident-co...). Maybe not irreversible damage, but crippling nonetheless. Is it totally pointless to fear one or more appropriately, to take affirmative actions to avoid one?
- jlgreco 14y ago
  You really think that could bring "The Fall of New Rome"? An attack a hundred times more deadly (which would be something like 3% of NYC's population dead, if my mental math does not betray me, or something a little less than 10x The Blitz.) than 9/11 would be a tragedy with only a few parallels in history. It would be an astronomically staggering blow to our economy. Hell, the mangled remains of the economy after such an attack probably would not even be recognizable as an economy at all... But bring down our society? No, not unless we allowed our fear to betray us. Not unless we abandoned any pretenses of maintaining our morale. Not unless we permit it to destroy us. To be honest, it really just sounds like you've been having too many Red Dawn fantasies. There are no more barbarian hoards; sorry to disappoint.
  - dublinben 14y ago
    Some people just like waiting for the barbarians. Even if there aren't any barbarians out there.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      It is a fantasy that is quite useful to some people, and seemingly very amusing in some sort of perverse way to others.
    - andyjohnson0 14y ago
      For those who don't get your reference, Waiting for the Barbarians is a poem by C P Cavafy. http://www.cavafy.com/poems/content.asp?id=119&cat=1 http://www.cavafy.com/poems/content.asp?id=119&cat=1
      - dublinben 14y ago
        It's also a Nobel prize winning novel by J. M. Cotzee. The allusion works either way.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    No red dawn fantasies, just realpolitik ones. I would consider it a destruction of our society if our economy was not "recognizable as an economy at all." Indeed, the current recession only wiped out about $600 billion of GDP at the worst, and look at how much suffering it caused. I'm willing to vote for the US to send quite a few more drones to Pakistan to avert a possible 10x 9/11 event, even if we could technically rebuild from one.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      You define "society" far too narrowly. A society is not an economy, a government, or even a piece of land enclosed by a border. It is an abstract idea, a sort of shared culture and basic methodology. Here is the real trick though, this "New Rome" is not a city. We don't have a seat of power from which we derive our identity and shared culture, or any sort of sackable cultural Mecca which we define ourselves by. You could level NYC and kill every last person in it, dismantle the government and turn dollars into papiermarks, but you would not have dismantled the society. Remaining you would still have hundreds of millions of Americans with no invading army to eradicate them and what they beleived in. More importantly, you would still billions of others, across the world, who would continue to make up bulk of our society. The worldwide shared culture of the 21st century, of which Americans represents but a fraction. A culture of appreciation for scientific progress, the arts, and political theories. A collective history, solemly remembering the same wars, sharing the same accomplishments. A Library of Alexandria that (thanks to dramatic advances in publishing and distribution since the last) cannot be burned. A few well placed bombs by a few extremists who want nothing to do with any of this could never put an end to all of this. This is a society that cannot be taken, cannot be sacked; we can only give it up. Only we present an existential threat to ourselves. Could there be massive lose of life, and would that be worth preventing? Absolutely. Are these people the Germanic hoards, posed to sack us? Are they in a position to dismantle our society? No.
- wtallis 14y ago
  The worst terrorist attack in US history managed to be about as bad as a strong hurricane hitting a densely populated area. That's noteworthy for sure, but not something that sane people would compare with civilization-destroying forces. It doesn't even compare to the "wars" of recent decades, let alone truly large-scale warfare of the sort that many countries have engaged in repeatedly without suffering the fate of the Roman Empire.
- riggins 14y ago
  "People downplay the magnitude of 9/11, but as I noted somewhere else today, it involved more deaths than Pearl Harbor" that's one point of reference. Here a different point of reference. It involved about 1/10 the number of annual automobile accident deaths.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Twice as many people die every year from car accidents than murders. I suppose its pointless to spend all those police resources fighting that? Human beings are not automotons.
    - riggins 14y ago
      "I suppose its pointless to spend all those police resources fighting that?" Huh? Are you replying to someone else who made a claim about resource allocation (bc I didn't)?

by jlgreco 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

With modern technology, you don't need to sack New York to cause tremendous damage. People downplay the magnitude of 9/11, but as I noted somewhere else today, it involved more deaths than Pearl Harbor, and economic damage of almost $100 billion (without accounting for the economic impact on the stock market). Is a terrorist attack ten times stronger inconceivable? An attack on a nuclear power plant could cost into trillions (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/a-nuclear-accident-could-cost-trillions-of-dollars-and-bankrupt-us.html http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/a-nuclear-accident-co...). Maybe not irreversible damage, but crippling nonetheless. Is it totally pointless to fear one or more appropriately, to take affirmative actions to avoid one?

jlgreco 14y ago
You really think that could bring "The Fall of New Rome"? An attack a hundred times more deadly (which would be something like 3% of NYC's population dead, if my mental math does not betray me, or something a little less than 10x The Blitz.) than 9/11 would be a tragedy with only a few parallels in history. It would be an astronomically staggering blow to our economy. Hell, the mangled remains of the economy after such an attack probably would not even be recognizable as an economy at all... But bring down our society? No, not unless we allowed our fear to betray us. Not unless we abandoned any pretenses of maintaining our morale. Not unless we permit it to destroy us. To be honest, it really just sounds like you've been having too many Red Dawn fantasies. There are no more barbarian hoards; sorry to disappoint.
- dublinben 14y ago
  Some people just like waiting for the barbarians. Even if there aren't any barbarians out there.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    It is a fantasy that is quite useful to some people, and seemingly very amusing in some sort of perverse way to others.
  - andyjohnson0 14y ago
    For those who don't get your reference, Waiting for the Barbarians is a poem by C P Cavafy. http://www.cavafy.com/poems/content.asp?id=119&cat=1 http://www.cavafy.com/poems/content.asp?id=119&cat=1
    - dublinben 14y ago
      It's also a Nobel prize winning novel by J. M. Cotzee. The allusion works either way.
- rayiner 14y ago
  No red dawn fantasies, just realpolitik ones. I would consider it a destruction of our society if our economy was not "recognizable as an economy at all." Indeed, the current recession only wiped out about $600 billion of GDP at the worst, and look at how much suffering it caused. I'm willing to vote for the US to send quite a few more drones to Pakistan to avert a possible 10x 9/11 event, even if we could technically rebuild from one.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    You define "society" far too narrowly. A society is not an economy, a government, or even a piece of land enclosed by a border. It is an abstract idea, a sort of shared culture and basic methodology. Here is the real trick though, this "New Rome" is not a city. We don't have a seat of power from which we derive our identity and shared culture, or any sort of sackable cultural Mecca which we define ourselves by. You could level NYC and kill every last person in it, dismantle the government and turn dollars into papiermarks, but you would not have dismantled the society. Remaining you would still have hundreds of millions of Americans with no invading army to eradicate them and what they beleived in. More importantly, you would still billions of others, across the world, who would continue to make up bulk of our society. The worldwide shared culture of the 21st century, of which Americans represents but a fraction. A culture of appreciation for scientific progress, the arts, and political theories. A collective history, solemly remembering the same wars, sharing the same accomplishments. A Library of Alexandria that (thanks to dramatic advances in publishing and distribution since the last) cannot be burned. A few well placed bombs by a few extremists who want nothing to do with any of this could never put an end to all of this. This is a society that cannot be taken, cannot be sacked; we can only give it up. Only we present an existential threat to ourselves. Could there be massive lose of life, and would that be worth preventing? Absolutely. Are these people the Germanic hoards, posed to sack us? Are they in a position to dismantle our society? No.
wtallis 14y ago
The worst terrorist attack in US history managed to be about as bad as a strong hurricane hitting a densely populated area. That's noteworthy for sure, but not something that sane people would compare with civilization-destroying forces. It doesn't even compare to the "wars" of recent decades, let alone truly large-scale warfare of the sort that many countries have engaged in repeatedly without suffering the fate of the Roman Empire.
riggins 14y ago
"People downplay the magnitude of 9/11, but as I noted somewhere else today, it involved more deaths than Pearl Harbor" that's one point of reference. Here a different point of reference. It involved about 1/10 the number of annual automobile accident deaths.
- rayiner 14y ago
  Twice as many people die every year from car accidents than murders. I suppose its pointless to spend all those police resources fighting that? Human beings are not automotons.
  - riggins 14y ago
    "I suppose its pointless to spend all those police resources fighting that?" Huh? Are you replying to someone else who made a claim about resource allocation (bc I didn't)?