A Disarming Story: Conclusion

author: Walter M. Spink | September 2007

A Final Statement

Please let me say this: my story is not in any way intended to approve the actions taken by the “Visionaries”. Nor does it suppose that some future global domination will necessarily be benign. Given an uncompromising commitment, a Hitler, or a Mao, or a Stalin, or a bin Laden could affect a similar takeover. The important question is this: faced with the enforced unification of the world by such a force, how would we respond to such total domination—both unasked-for and unwanted? Perhaps even more important than that: what would the world be like after the aggressors themselves had been long gone, carried away by Time? What kind of world would we have created out of our desire and need for change? And would it have been created, not only with commitment, but with a transfiguring expectation? Even, perhaps, with joy.


The absurdity remains; for we all know that if we are continually supplying our arsenals with more and better arms (and more and better defenses against those more and better arms), someone somewhere somehow will use this destructive power to destroy the world.

There are three possible options or resolutions to such a confrontational situation

1. Global destruction. By using the available destructive forces, either intentiona lly or not, we could all too easily destroy civilization. If the initial confrontation was not total, we could try again; but eventually the outcome would or could be complete global destruction, finally putting an ultimate and bitter end to the problem. .

Such a course of destruction could be started out of fear or anger or patriotic fervor or pride or greed or madness or sheer stupidity or mere confusion or computer hacking or even computer error. If the first round was not effective—if the destruction was limited—the process would inevitably proceed in future confrontations to its logical ending, namely eventual obliteration, when the contending parties finally went too far.

2. Global cooperation. This is the most reasonable and productive idea; but our history and our long-established attitudes, would seem to deny the attainment of such a goal. Sadly, the choice is much more likely to be between options 1 and 3.

3. Global domination (The option discussed in A Disarming Story) The same destructive power that, as in option #1, could destroy the world, could be equally used in a far more positive way, with the specific intent of avoiding a seemingly inevitable global destruction.. In such a scenario, an “aggressor”, who if not fool-hardy might be either elusive or anonymous, would take control of the threatened world and would insistently (and necessarily) disarm it.

The aggressor’s intent might be either malign or benign. Although such a world-shattering action would surely be read as “terrorism”, the outcome of this staggering global takeover would depend upon the attitude and actions of the people of the world. It would not necessarily—at least as time went on—be negative, even if at first enforced. Our future, inevitably, would be up to us.

Such a course of domination could be started (like its cousin, destruction) out of fear or anger or patriotic fervor or pride or greed or madness or sheer stupidity; but also out of a desire to save the world from anticipated destruction, or to transform it in ways considered beneficial and necessary.

Actually, the good earth does not care what we do; it has seen worlds disappear before. But we ourselves must care. And if we are going to care, we have to think; we have to think about the way out of the destructive impasse that, honoring our arsenals, we have created for ourselves. We have to welcome the transformation of the world. Who can deny that need; or refuse to honor that expectation?