"...it's too late for pebbles to vote."

Thus begins a cascade that's likely to last all through the 21st century, whether we like it or not, whether we are ready or not. In the words of that great astropolitical strategist, Kosh Naranek, the Vorlon Ambassador from "Babylon 5": "The avalanche has already started. It is too late for pebbles to vote."

So ends a piece by James Pinkerton at Tech Central Station last May in which he discusses the latest (known) developments in the race for bigger and better atomic bombs, particularly by (Pick one: countries, enemies, societies, regimes, researchers, developers) who may not have access to the latest state of the art.

And what an art it is!

For me to broach the subject of nu-klar energy in my little blog may be the pinnacle of presumption. But if ordinary people are entitled to at least one vote each selecting which of their elected representatives get an opportunity to pocket vast sums of money from K Street, then I am also entitled to take a look at the arms race. Inasmuch as I and my family are targets in that race, so we are told, I submit that no further qualifications are needed.

This morning's reading is not easy. Nor it it pretty.
But it is important, particularly with the ongoing discussions regarding Iran's confrontational attitude vis-a-vis the United Nations, the president's predeliction for "pre-emptive" military moves (better understood as preventive rather than preemptive), and the ongoing sabre-rattling from the throbbing core of the domestic political right.

Here is what I am reading. Let's hope that the reference above to an avalanche is incorrect. Let's pray that a few of us pebbles can still cast a vote that will count.

The Rumblings of an Atomic Avalanche

Iran Ditches the UN...Now What?

Regime Change and Its Limits by Richard N. Haass ["One other alternative for dealing with Pyongyang's and Tehran's nuclear programs is the limited use of military force. Such attacks could take two forms. One is a preemptive strike, akin to what Israel did in 1967 when, learning of an imminent Egyptian attack, it hit the Egyptians first. For such an attack to work, however, the intelligence assessment of the threat must be near 100 percent accurate, confirming that the danger is in fact imminent and that there are no other available means to stop it. Under such rare circumstances, it is widely viewed that a state enjoys the right to strike before it is certain to be struck. This is preemption in the classical sense -- something quite different from President George W. Bush's use of the term, which in fact is better understood as prevention."]

Hitting the Target by M. Simon, not a top-tier blog, perhaps, but one which I follow regularly because the blogmaster appears to be coldly sensible and know what he is talking about. And from this source the following links...

Joining the Club

Iran is asking for it, his prescient post from November, 2004.

***

***

No, we aren't going to settle the issue this weekend, but the more we know the better able we are to have intelligent conversations.

I am particularly impressed with Simon's conclusion that allies get considerations that enemies do not. Nothing we didn't know, of course, but most people don't like to say it out loud. I guess that's why it's called politics. The frightening part is not what we know, it's what we don't.