A Disarming Story - Introduction

Disarming Story Article

author: Walter M. Spink | September 2007

With a number of threatening new applicants, some of whom you would not want to meet on a dark street at night, pushing into our once exclusive Nuclear Club, and with our arsenals being so compulsively enlarged, we are obsessively making a time bomb of our world.

We all fear, even as we build our bigger and better arsenals, that the time may come when the world is so wired, so set to “launch on warning”, that we will soon be living on the brink of a nuclear holocaust, which could strike at any moment due to patriotic fervor, or our pride, or anger, or fear, or madness, or paranoia or mere confusion, or even computer error. In such a situation the only way to resolve the contentious situation before it is too late could well be the uncompromising takeover, and consequent disarming, of the world by a power that uses the force of its arsenals—whether for good or evil—for domination rather than destruction.

Admittedly, we might far more ideally opt for a world based on community and cooperation. But history tells us that this is not to be. The world’s mounting contentions predict something far more dramatic for our heedless future. The fact is, if we cannot get our act together, global domination might well be the only option to save the world from itself, when civilization, toying with the masochistic temptations of Mutually Assured Destruction, is so balanced at the edge of doom.

“A Disarming Story” is about the implications of global domination as an alternative to the possibility of global destruction. It considers how some nation or anonymous power, either benign or malign, might use its destructive capabilities to ultimately take over—indeed, to hi-jack—the world and then to disarm it, in order to be in total control. Of course, this does not mean that the world would welcome such a transformation; for once our fences and our fortresses have been taken down, nations can no longer sponsor the divisions of the world. In fact there can be no nations in an undivided world, a world deprived of its weapons. And so, instead of bemoaning a loss which in fact could be a gain, we would have to work together, on our common ground, to create the kind of ideal community that could not only assure the future itself, but the future’s happiness.

If you do not like my story, if you do not like the threatening choice between Destruction and Domination, why do we not get our act together? Why do we not, through cooperation and conversation(and common sense, change the future (our future) before it changes us?

Ahmad Amir Sheikh