Nuclear Neo-Feudalism

Photo by Aleksandra B. on Unsplash

After discussing the state (or rather lack) of democracy around the world last week, it’s time to talk about what our current governance structure could potentially evolve into. And what could be a better starting point to this discussion than the decision whether to kick-off a full blown nuclear war. (I know its Christmas time, but judging by the events, everything seems to be tried to have one started.) Bear with me though: this is not the time for nuclear annihilation—but let’s not get ahead of ourselves just yet.

---

Thank you for reading The Honest Sorcerer, and special thanks to those who already support my work: without you this site could not exist. If you are new here and would like to see more in depth analysis of our predicament, please subscribe for free, or perhaps consider a paid subscription. You can also support my work by virtually inviting me for a coffee, or sharing this article with a friend. Thank you in advance!

One more thing before we begin. Although there are many highly intelligent comments made underneath these essays, the number of irrelevant, inappropriate (and sadly sometimes offensive) comments is also on the rise. Therefore, in order to make this blog a place for valuable discussions for all, please adhere to the following rules: no trolling, no offensive speech, no ad hominem attacks, no paid propagandizing, no advertisements. Since, unfortunately, I don’t have the time to read through all the comments, readers are encouraged to report offending posts. At first, such comments will be deleted to keep the discussion on track. Backsliding offenders, on the other hand, will be banned from commenting. Thank you for your cooperation and support! And now on with the show.

---

Let’s start things off with an excellent thought experiment proposed by Luke Kemp, involving nuclear physicists and the Trinity test on one side and plumbers and nurses on the other. It goes like this (slightly edited transcript from the interview with Kemp linked above):

“In the Sands of New Mexico they’re creating an atomic bomb, and there’s a calculation made by a physicist called Leo Szilard where he essentially calculates that there’s a very very small, infinitesimal chance that if you ignite the bomb, it’ll actually ignite the entire atmosphere with it — killing every single life form on the planet. It will incinerate the entire biosphere. It’s low probability but it can’t be ruled out… Of course, they still go ahead and do it. And not only that, they actually take bets in a very sardonic way on whether or not this will incinerate the entire world.

Now, imagine an alternative Universe, where the decision to use the atomic weapon (to basically have the Trinity test) is not taken by a bunch of physicists and policy makers in the US, but instead they decide to do a jury. They randomly select a number of citizens, plumbers and nurses from across the US, they have them sit down and they are briefed by the physicists. Leo Szilard says we can’t rule out the possibility that this will destroy all life on Earth. Importantly the intelligence agency analysts also come to them and say we know that the Nazis are no longer going to build their own bomb. They weren’t taken the right course in the first place and they’ve actually given up on a bomb stage. So, this is no longer even a race to prevent a Thermonuclear Third Reich. This is essentially just about U.S. power, and potentially — in the very best case — ending the war early. Imagine these people — a dozen people, maybe even more — given that information and told to make a decision on whether or not to ignite the Trinity test. What decision do you think they make?”

If you bet their answer is ‘Fuck, no!’ you’re right on the mark. Now, if you add that — according to the U.S. Air Force — Japan was just a couple of (regular) bombing campaigns away from capitulation, the answer becomes easier still. Yet politicians — in order to deter and demonstrate power to the Soviets — decided to take a risk on exterminating life on Earth and to kick-off a nuclear arms race. Luckily for all of us living beings the atmosphere did not go up in a thermonuclear flash, and the lucrative business of manufacturing thousands of atomic bombs could eventually be started. You see, the Manhattan project has created a whole new branch of industry, with plenty of potential for profits and an infinite capacity to soak up taxpayer money. A win-win for both politicians dreaming of world dominance and corporations seeking a new revenue stream.

Famous color photograph of the “Trinity” shot, the first nuclear test explosion. Jack W. Aeby, July 16, 1945, Civilian worker at Los Alamos laboratory, working under the aegis of the Manhattan Project. Source

Contrast this with what democracy ought to mean:‘Democracy is a system of government in which laws, policies, leadership, and major undertakings of a state or other polity are directly or indirectly decided by the “people”’ — according to Britannica. Or as Lincoln put it in his famous Gettysburg Address in 1863: a democratic government is “of the people, by the people, for the people”. The wee problem is that people were neither consulted with (whether such a dangerous move should be taken), nor had a vote later on the fate of this weapons class after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Only a selected few had a say in the matter. And while one could argue that the Manhattan project and the Trinity test was a top secret undertaking, the decision to continue with a nuclear arms race was never on the ballot.

Even worse still, one man could start a nuclear war on his own. According to former Vice President Dick Cheney the President of the United States “could launch the kind of devastating attack the world has never seen. He doesn’t have to check with anybody. He doesn’t have to call the Congress; he doesn’t have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.” Democratic checks and balances, anyone…? It’s worth remembering here, that a nuclear conflict cannot be won, nor “prevented” by a decapitation strike:

“Once switched on, the Perimeter system can launch the entire Russian nuclear arsenal in response to a nuclear attack. It was part of the Cold War doctrine of mutually assured destruction, a means of deterring nuclear attacks by ensuring the side who initiated a first strike also would be annihilated.

Called “Dead Hand” in the West, the theory is that a command and control system measures communications on military frequencies, radiation levels, air pressure, heat and short-term seismic disturbances. If the measurement points to a nuclear attack, the Perimeter begins a sequence that would end in the firing of all ICBMs in the Soviet (now, Russian) arsenal.

Perimeter would launch a command rocket, tipped with a radio warhead that transmits launch orders to Russian nuclear silos, even with the presence of radio jamming. The rocket would fly across the entire length of the country. After a number of test launches to prove the viability of such a command rocket, the Perimeter system went online in 1985.”

The US, too, has its intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) on “hair-trigger alert” status, which keeps them ready at all times to launch within minutes. (In practice as soon as infrared sensors on satellites over Russia detect the launch of ICBMs, the order to launch a retaliation strike could be given in minutes, with missiles leaving their silos well before the first nuke detonated over US soil.) As Frank von Hippel, professor of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University pointed out in his article linked above:

“Launch on warning is controversial for two reasons: First, history has shown that false warnings do occur due to equipment failure and human error, and today there is the additional danger of hackers. Second, a launch-on-warning posture is indistinguishable from being constantly poised to mount a first strike, which pressures Russia and China to put their missiles on hair trigger as well. The United States would be on the receiving end for any mistaken launch one of them makes.”

In a nutshell: if either side decided it’s time for the nukes to fly, you can take it for granted that the other side would launch their stockpile of nukes, too, in a matter of minutes. In such a scenario (and it really doesn’t matter who presses the button first) only 48 minutes would pass from the first rocket firing to an all-out-war, and in a mere 72 minutes it would be all over. There is no such thing as a limited nuclear war — it’s a myth. Such a chain of events would go through almost automatically, as everyone from the launch site personnel to the generals control only a tiny portion of the process, and expected to execute a task practiced over and over and over again. “Preventive war” — paraphrasing Otto von Bismarck — is thus nothing short of “committing suicide out of fear of death.”

A full scale nuclear war described above would lead, at minimum, to 360 million quick deaths and most likely end in a nuclear winter due to all that soot and ash from burning cities blocking the sun for years, if not a decade. A further 5,341,000,000 people (most of them on the northern hemisphere) would starve to death in the first two years as a result, and the remaining population would be forced to migrate towards warmer climates. And while this sounds like a terrifying prospect and the risk of a terrible miscalculation or mistake is not negligible, I remain hopeful that a full-scale nuclear holocaust would never came to pass. Why? While currently there is zero chance for people to vote en masse on nuclear disarmament, and their desire to find a peaceful negotiated end to conflicts around the world is blatantly disregarded, the head honchos don’t want to die either.

Consider the following twist to Kemp’s thought experiment outlined above: Instead of plumbers and nurses from across the US, imagine a jury assembled from big oil CEO-s, the bosses of certain social media and an online retail platform, together with an odd electric car company owner, joined by investment fund managers and bankers. They sit down in a room to be briefed by the scientists. Frank von Hippel comes forth and explains how a nuclear attack on either side would certainly result in a retaliation strike, which taken together with the first launch, could destroy life on Earth. Importantly, the business analysts also come to them and say that such a war would likely wipe out 98% of their companies’ workforce and customer base in a year, resulting in the likely cut-off of all their revenue streams. (Oh, and let’s not forget how their companies’ stock valuations would be up in smoke, too.) Talks of pre-emptive precision strikes is thus essentially about US power, and potentially — in the very best case — ensuring a better negotiating position.

Imagine these people — a dozen people, maybe even more — given that information and told to make a decision on whether or not to allow for a continuation of escalations. What decision do you think they make? My hunch is that, after briefly reflecting on the possible consequences, the CEO-s and bankers would rather continue enjoying their luxurious lives, and would not for a billion dollars vote to live in a bunker for a decade — only to experience a complete loss of their wealth and power, and risk to be extorted by the security staff. Hence the massive push for peace talks from the top echelons of the incoming administration. As long as we are “blessed” with an oligarchy, a group of unelected leaders and their minions, they will do whatever they can to keep the trigger-happy worshipers of Armageddon at bay. Again, the situation we are in today is extremely dangerous due to the risk of misinterpretation of the other sides actions, but not because either side is really interested in blowing the other up. In this question at least, the interests of common folk and the elites intersect, on both sides of the Atlantic.

Um, on second thought, rather not. Photo by Ronan Furuta on Unsplash

Having a firmly entrenched corporate elite on top comes with considerable downside risks, though. Let’s assume that high quality easy-to-get oil indeed proves to be finite, and what remains indeed turns out to be increasingly uneconomic to recover. In such a case both demand and supply would peak then begin to diminish towards the turn of this decade — leading to an unstoppable economic contraction and a financial meltdown. Last week I argued that such an event could create uncontrolled chaos in the money and stock markets, wiping out all paper wealth and leaving us with a power vacuum. Now, let’s take a look at another scenario, in which this jury of money-men does manage to find a way to keep their power.

In this scenario oligarchs manage to escape the financial mayhem by buying up all agricultural land, real estate, gold, mineral reserves and other assets indispensable for a post-fossil-fuel world before the stock market crash arrives. So should that black Thursday pay us a visit once more, these people with real world collateral would thus be able to buy up all failed banks pennies on the dollar (together with their mortgages). We would, as a result, find ourselves in some twisted form of neo-feudalism overnight, working for food and shelter both owned and delivered by former corporate overlords and asset managers.

Needless to say, present trends would accelerate considerably under this scenario. Wealth inequality would shoot through the roof. Rights and legal protections for common people and for the neo-nobility would become similarly unequal. Social mobility would be reduced to zero, and oligarchy would turn into a new form of hereditary corporate aristocracy. Even as most of their monetary and paper wealth would be wiped out, the real power of the surviving elites would only increase.

Now, I want you to consider this: What would happen, should the coming economic downturn prove to be permanent (which I think it will, in the absence of a viable alternative to oil)? Would the absence of energy and food eventually lead to a classic collapse of central power? As for a hint how things turned out to be for past civilizations in a similar situation, here is what anthropologist and historian Joseph A. Tainter had to say in his seminal work The Collapse of Complex Societies:

“There is, first and foremost, a breakdown of authority and central control. Prior to collapse, revolts and provincial breakaways signal the weakening of the center. Revenues to the government often decline. Foreign challengers become increasingly successful. With lower revenues the military may become ineffective. The populace becomes more and more disaffected as the hierarchy seeks to mobilize resources to meet the challenge.

With disintegration, central direction is no longer possible. The former political center undergoes a significant loss of prominence and power. It is often ransacked and may ultimately be abandoned. Small, petty states emerge in the formerly unified territory, of which the previous capital may be one. Quite often these contend for domination, so that a period of perpetual conflict ensues. The umbrella of law and protection erected over the populace is eliminated.”

Returning to the question of mutually assured destruction: What would happen to nukes should the US indeed fall apart? Would small petty states — each led by a wealthy landlord — launch some sort of Civil War II in their contest for dominance? Would they lob thermonuclear warheads at each other then? How would Russia and China react, should they survive the economic crash as a state? They certainly won’t have the military power nor the means to conquer America by force… Would they launch their missiles upon detecting former US ICBM-s leaving their silos (knowing that there would be no orchestrated response)…? Or would nuclear missiles be left to rust in their silos, eventually turning into mythical weapons of a bygone age? I can only hope that it will be the latter. No matter how hard the future without this much oil and technology will be, it will be infinitely better than a one beset by nuclear winter and radioactive fallout.

Until next time,

B

Notes:

Although I try not to be prescriptive, the question poses itself: What can readers do to avoid being sucked into this nuclear neo-feudal system? I really wish to give no investment advice, but getting rid of debts and mortgages with the highest priority looks like a good idea to me. Similarly, investing in tangible assets, as the rich do, might also be an option. Third, finding alternative income streams — by picking up a trade for example — could also come handy, as well as learning how to grow food. On a small, local community level: practicing real democracy (as described by Kemp) or learning how to reach consensus while things are still more or less OK, could also be useful when things break down and resources run thin. The key-words to remember: self-sufficiency and fostering democracy in your local community. Remember, the goal is not to save democracy, let alone this civilization as both of them were unsustainable from the get go, but to survive and even thrive throughout the decades ahead.

The Honest Sorcerer is a reader-supported publication. Please consider a subscription or perhaps buying a virtual coffee… Thanks in advance!