Can One Man Declare War and Win?

[slapout9]

Starting at the beginning at least close.


Page 8 from BNW: Over time in as little as twenty years, and as the leverage by technology increases, this threshold will finally reach its culmination- with the ability of one man to declare war on the world and win. it is in italics in the book, I put it in bold to show the author's emphasis. Does the council think this is a possibility?

[Bill Moore]

I'm relying on memory, but I thought the author said in the future one man could declare war and win? I think this would require us to define war first, and I don't think we want to go down that rathole now. However, I do think it is possible for one man (especially in the future) to have extensive coercive power over a State if he can convincably present a viable threat, whether it is a biological attack, a computer virsus (that can undermine our economy), or something else along those lines. Somewhere in the book he refers to the superempowered individual, which I think is already true to some degree (one man now can create a disproportionate amount of disruption compared to one man could do in the 1970s) due to the proliferation of knowledge and technology and the centralization of our global economy. That capability will increase with time. Imagine one man releasing a catastrophic bio-agent effectively in a major city, and then contacting a government with his demands, or else he'll release it in another city? Can one man destroy the U.S. or U.K for example, perhaps but that is stretch. Can one man make the U.S. or U.K. dance to his demands?

[Rob Thornton]

I wonder if he meant that through the the ability to "connect" his message with others looking for a cause, 1 man could mobilize a great deal of trouble? This gets into Bill's comment about defining war though. While this 1 man's mobilization could be limited to a denial of service movement, it could also say - all of you who beleive my cause to be just, meet me at the gun swap meet, and we'll go from there. Theoretically (with out the mechanisms for catching such folks), a fellow could mobilize a global audience - into global guerillas. This gets to Friedman's point about the big being able to act small and the small being able to act big through the power of the Internet.

[Ski]

No, one man cannot win a war. An individual can launch a large biological attack, which is really the only way to inflict really, really huge casualties, but a single person isn't going to destroy the will of a nation. An individual can attack critical nodes of a power transferring system, an economic system or a computer system, but with built in redundancies, this too can be neutralized.

Like Rob said, one charasmatic leader can act as a rallying cause for many other people to join that cause, but even then, it can be neutralized pretty easily (let them carve a new state out of some land in the Amazon or somewhere else remote- almost like an exile but with greater effects - don't let the door hit you on the way out and good luck with your future, and we aren't coming to hel) I don't see an Ernst Blofeld or a John Galt scenario arising any time soon.

[Jedburgh]

...as the leverage by technology increases, this threshold will finally reach its culmination- with the ability of one man to declare war on the world and win. it is in italics in the book, I put it in bold to show the author's emphasis. Does the council think this is a possibility?

...Can one man destroy the U.S. or U.K for example, perhaps but that is stretch. Can one man make the U.S. or U.K. dance to his demands?

Only if he controls the Q-Bomb.



Actually, there's been a slight change of plans. I know it will come as a surprise, a pleasant one I hope, but we sort of won.

Not to be facetious - I know this is a serious question. But l do think the nightmare dooms-day tech that Bill refers to as a possibility is a potential world-shattering threat that can be considered from a number of angles. Even given that I don't think this will emerge in the forseeable future, if I accept the premise I still doubt that we are looking at a "one-man" scenario. Like the troop from the Grand Duchy of Fenwick, or an autonomous terror cell, even given unknown future technological leaps I believe that it would take at least a small group of conspirators to pull off something of that import. If I stretch the premise to accept that the "one-man" is a charismatic leader with a sycophantic group of deviously talented lackeys, then perhaps it fits.....

[AdamG]

Well, we can segue into the "there can be only one" context.

[nichols]

I don't think that will be possible.

Let's go back to President Bush's Mission Accomplished statement. By our accepted definition at the time, not his, the mission was accomplished. The intangables of human nature plays into this more then anything else.

Has there ever really been true peace in history? We can't acheive true peace on a global scale, I don't think it would be possible for one person to declare war on the world and win.

[TROUFION]

Once the 'one man' wins, what does he get?

He cannot occupy the world?

Though I think 'one man' could destroy the world. Napoleon, Hitler, Mao, people who can influence others, if they had the internet and global reach communications, if Mein Kampf had been e-published as he was writing it? One man can influence the world. I didn't think Robb meant it literally.

Mainly becuase when I think of the 'one man' concept I think of Dr. Evil and that kinda blows the deal. 'I will destroy the world unless you give me...1 milion dollars'

[FascistLibertarian]

When I read BNW I thought of brave new world not Brave New War, would have been an interesting prediction to make in 1932! I think that compared to Russian Czars, Hitler, Mao, and Stalin no one today exercises such a large amount of total power. People today hate their leaders, worshipping is so North Korea.
The rise of industrialization made these socities possible but we now live in post industrial socities. If someone started a nuclear war they could 'win', but what would they really win. Hearts and minds are a hard goal these days. The world is more divided today than it has ever been. Short of some evil super genius I dont see it happening.

if they had the internet and global reach communications

This has made the message harder to get across. When you compare how communications changed because of the printing press and the radio, and how much easier it was for the state to control these. If Hitler was alive today he wouldn’t get anywhere, the conditions that existed before the 2nd world war will never exist today, people are to afraid to believe.

[shloky]

Something to drive the discussion:

To get a handle on what Robb is talking about, read The White Plague by Frank Herbert. .

[emjayinc]

Seems one way to get a handle on the "global guerilla" is to regard him in the context of globalization, as discussed in, for example, TPM Barnett and T Friedman. A "flat world" with 3 zones of operations: the Core, The Gap, and The Seam, and both physical and virtual commo and transport easily, quickly, and covertly effected, is just the kind of sea required for the global ""transnational, non-state") guerilla to become real, rather than just a staple of fictional Blofeldian or Mad Maxian style adventure. John LeCarre's "Philip" character in recently published "The Mission Song" is maybe a good example of a "global guerilla" leader in a contemporary setting.