Ideas contrived of words provide the mechanism by which difference becomes relevant to us, thereby giving meaning to what we think.  Sequential in its form, this approach to thought is "linear" in nature while it is "quantitative" in result. Although symbiotic by function, this inherent structure results in two different potentials for mankind and not just one. And, it is here where the fundamental problem of retaining relevancy between ourselves and our information arises.  Destined to seek a result which it is inherently incapable of confirming, our "thought process" inevitably yields a level of complexity, compounded generation upon generation, that quickly eclipses all existing capability to comprehend and thereby control. Immersed in that complexity, which is already well progressed, we are now experiencing this loss of control.  I realize that the abstract conjunction of ideas can be difficult to comprehend, so let's jump directly to tangible examples.

Before science and technology had risen to their present degree of sophistication, mankind played out its aggressions through the selective destruction of itself; i.e. the French Revolution, World War I & II, the Russian Revolution, etc..  Today however, as a result of the advent of the atom, each new conflict between nations accelerates the risk for world confrontation and nuclear holocaust.  What goes unrecognized is the fundamental reason for why this has happened.  As we shall see, the answer is bound up to the continuous alteration of human language and the ideas it sustains or can no longer sustain in the face of this compounding complexity.

In their most basic form, the concepts of "offense" and "defense" constitute a dichotomy.  This means that for every 'offense' there is a corresponding 'defense' that acts as its "temporal qualifier."  Without such a 'qualifier,' idea cannot become temporally relevant to us.  This symbiotic relationship -- in the case of 'offense' and 'defense' -- IF held in balance, always yields a stalemate that ensures mutual survival.  However, because of the continued impact of our thought process upon knowledge, and its associated impact upon reality, this stabilizing principle has now been compromised.  The result is a reduction in usable 'time' by which to implement the necessary 'defense' required to moderate an existing 'offense.' Something necessary to ensure human survival.  With this safeguard gone, the only logical idea capable of explaining the potential consequences of this breakdown is that of "mutually assured destruction."

Time is an essential element to the human equation.  Yet, in today's environment, there is insufficient 'time' for conscious reflection when it comes to averting impending destruction.  Here's why.  Today, it takes approximately 17 minutes for a nuclear-armed missile to travel between the two strongest nations on earth.  Submarine based missiles require just seven minutes to achieve the same result.  Countries, whose chief antagonists border one another, like Israel and Syria, India and Pakistan or North and South Korea, have less than 4 minutes to react.  The same scenario will apply to Russia and eventually China, if "defense shield" missiles are placed in proximity to their borders -- reminiscent of the problem caused by "peace keeping" missiles during Ronald Reagan's presidency.  Their placement on European soil caused a blatant "imbalance of power" that wound up promoting new schemes of advantage on behalf of those threatened, schemes that pushed the World closer and closer to the brink of nuclear war.  Hence, it had the opposite effect from the one intended by Reagan and his military strategists.  Thankfully, in that case, the idiocy in this decision was exposed and the missiles were withdrawn before incident.  However, this prior "asininity" has now found new life with today's mental midgets.  And it too needs to be exposed for what it is, before it causes an instability that inadvertently leads to a nuclear exchange of unprecedented proportion.

Bear in mind that the identification and subsequent verification of any nuclear attack by adjacent powers, or weapons placed in proximity to their borders, reduces retaliation time (for vulnerable weapon systems) to less than 4 minutes -- provided retaliation is going to be initiated before assets are destroyed.  Obviously, this is already untenable.  And yet, on a daily basis, technology seeks ways to decrease this 'time' interval -- and, there is no reason to believe that it will not be successful.

Four minutes is definitely insufficient 'time' in which to initiate a 'defense.'  Even an idiot knows that.  The exposure of this fact caused deception to enter the picture in order to forestall further discovery of what amounted to a military blunder.  It found form in a new word that was added to the military vernacular.  It was "retaliation."  And, Its strategic purpose was to imply the validity of the existence of 'offensive' weapons to achieve 'defensive' goals in order to calm fears.  However, this premise is structurally invalid, because there is no implication of containment of anything in its meaning.  Consistent with that, the weapon systems involved exceed the capability of mankind to survive their use.  And, without human survival, the concept of 'defense' is obviously meaningless.

So, how then are we to understand the use of 'retaliation' as it relates to the idea of 'defense?'  Logically, we can't.  'Retaliation' is NOT an acceptable alternative for 'defense' -- nor can it be.  Unable to stem growing concern over the obvious, an attempt to solve this contradiction resulted in the linking of the idea of 'retaliation' with that of "deterrence."  To deter, means to discourage through fear.  And, it is this marriage of idea -- resulting from logical necessity -- that clearly demonstrates, for the 1st time in human history, the denial of logic (by itself) as a necessary component for the justification of progressing its unbridled expansion by way of us.  

It should be clear to everyone, that to discourage by means of fear is NOT an acceptable determiner for a scientific process that claims to rely upon rational quantitative thought to determine the specific nature of its result.  Instead, its presence in this chain of reasoning suggests something far more climatic.  It proves that neither science nor the method by which it achieves its result (the linear/quantitative thought process) can ensure the continued survival of mankind if FEAR cannot contain the human factor.

Proof of the finality of our situation lies in the fact that 'retaliation' is already programmed into the computer systems of most nuclear capable countries.  This program concretizes an approximation of the minimum amount of quantifiable data required to engage the retaliatory capability.  This threshold obviously varies from country to country depending upon computer system capability.  This mindless intervention by machines has become necessary, because mind realizes that it can no longer function in the reduced 'time' interval allotted to it for decision making with regard to nuclear war.

It is ironic that the final decisions regarding world survival rest with the machines of our contrivance by default -- since, they alone possess the ability to implement retaliation in the ever shrinking parameters of 'time' to which they so heavily contribute.  So, where does all this leave us? 

Today, an act that requires only a fool to begin can set into motion the most complex technology on earth to complete.  Once begun, it cannot be reversed, because the 'time' necessary to achieve reversal no longer exists in the cycle.  Mind simply cannot function quickly enough to intervene.

And, the machines that lie at the heart of it all, have no stake in human survival; but instead, mindlessly function relative to whatever equation initiates their intervention.  Yet, in spite of the obvious, the alteration and misuse of language by idiots continues, concealing this threat and preventing its containment through the introduction of new ideas into the human psyche that are likewise non-dichotomous -- or, ideas that have NO temporal constraints inherent in the difference by which they are known.

Adding to the threat of inadequate time, a new and equally insidious approach to dealing with human insecurity has arisen.  And again, its value is disguised in yet another abortion of language.  This latest misnomer is called "preemption."  And, it too seeks to justify 'offensive' action in the name of 'defense.'  But, as with its less sophisticated sibling, there is no inherent temporal constraint evident in its difference either.  In other words, the extent of 'preemption' rests solely upon capability, willingness, and the degree of fear that prompts its use to achieve perceived advantage.  Hence, there is no inherent rationale that governs the containment of its use.  Of course, like all such abortions, its justification is championed by the opportunist lacking foresight.  And in this instance, it is being done by amplifying "fear," driven by the possibility of threat from those correctly or incorrectly classified as being irrational.  The problem here is that 'preemption' cannot help but "up the ante" of instability in the world, thus bringing the importance of weapons of mass destruction (and the threat of their use) once more to the fore, as the only means to achieve protection from the high tech invasion of their sovereign space -- short of total capitulation to the aggressor -- which is hardly a reasonable option.

If all this insanity were not enough, another machination of progressed thought has now leveraged its way into the human equation.  It takes the form of "genetically altered" organisms.  In this case, just like in the last, 'time' is again the enemy when trying to neutralize this threat.  But unlike the 4 minute threshold that haunts the nuclear scenario, the threat here is due to the insurmountable obstacles that the complexity of these organisms pose -- making 'time' a non sequitur.  In other words, a cure simply cannot be found in the period it would take for these organisms to wipe out the human race.  A far lesser example of this problem can be seen with the HIV virus which was first identified in 1983 and is still without a cure some 30 years later.  Thankfully, it works slower and is spread by human activity that is somewhat containable.  However, airborne versions of the bird flu virus (H1N1) and similar organisms in development, suffer no such hindrance, causing their kill rate to approach 100%.

The greater fear with these organisms -- and it is one that is totally justifiable -- is that one or more of them will find their way into the hands of small groups with the propensity for suicidal behavior.  Groups that have been alienated by political, economic, military or religious difference.  If that happens, all the military might in the World will be rendered meaningless overnight. 

So, it is to no one's advantage to continue to promote instability through aggression while misusing language as a means to cover up existing liability.  Instead, it is far more important that language be brought back under control and that the abortions that conceal the threat of irrationality be exposed for what they are, before it is too late.