3 ms·

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

• 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.
    • rayiner 14y ago
      > You define "society" far too narrowly You're defining "society" as a pointless philosophical abstraction. I'm defining "society" in terms of the only thing I care about: the people and country around me. I'm not interested in the history books that remain to be written. I think most Americans feel similarly. It might be satisfying in some intellectual sense if "the worldwide shared culture of the 21st century" (of which America might represent a small fraction numerically, but which is disproportionately American in its composition) survives, but does little good for Americans who suffer.
• anigbrowl 14y ago
  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? Starvation or hopelessness tends to erode idealism pretty quickly. You don't need any kind of ridiculous Red Dawn fantasy to appreciate the possibility of critical injury; nor would the fall of an empire be an overnight thing. It's relatively easy to identify strategic weak points with the potential to tip a country into a tailspin.
  • jlgreco 14y ago
    Idealism has nothing to do with it. In the best of times and in the darkest of times, we retain the same society and merely expose different aspects of it. To erradicate a culture requires much more than destroying its economy and starving it. We have numerous great examples of total societal collapse and eradication. Starvation to the point of extinction can do it on islands with no resources, disease can do it in previously isolated societies with no defense against it, invading armies can do it, and mass immigration and cultural conversion can do it. None of those is adaquate or available to a bunch of redneck bomb-chuckers. Not if they are trying to erradicate a society that spans countries, continents, languages, and armies. Modern society simply does not face an existential threat from terrorists. They can do a lot of damage sure, but they will not erradicate modern society. If you want to suggest otherwise you are going to have to do better than "a few hundred thousand Americans die, the American government crumbles under the disaster relieve effort, then people start eating each other." I know you guys are really digging that fantasy, but you are delusional if you really think that would pose a threat to the modern global society.
• gyardley 14y ago
  Given any economic disruption that affects food distribution, you'll see your barbarism right quick.