A Swift and Sure Proposal

Americans have always found ingeneous solutions to their problems. The legendary 19th century science fiction writer Jules Vern (a Frenchman at that) called Americans born engineers, and he set his novel ``From the Earth to the Moon`` in America (with some striking parallels to the actual Moon landing, such as the launch vehicle being named the Columbiad and the launch being carried out from south Florida, etc.). Americans have been responsible for multiple revolutions in science and technology, including instant communications (Alexander Graham Bell), intercontinental communications (Cyrus Field and the transcontinental telegraph), automobiles and the assembly line method of production (Henry Ford), electric lights, phonographs, and motion pictures (Thomas Edison), nuclear technology, manned space exploration, etc. But recently, technological fixes have seem to elude us; we have overpopulation despite our invention of such useful items as the day-glow condom, we have Gobal Warming despite the invention of air conditioning by Willis Haviland Carrier, we have nuclear proliferation and terrorism despite the advent of ``the last, best hope of Mankind``-the United Nations. Much of the world is hungry despite advances in farming techniques developed right here in the good old U.S. of A. Why, oh why, can`t we find a silver bullet, a technological fix that would solve all of these nefarious problems at once, with one final act? If Americans are equal to the confidence placed on us by that Fungi eater Vern, we should be capable of inventing a solution which wraps all these problems together and ties them up with a bright coaxial bow.

Outgoing U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan hinted at the answer in a speech he gave recently at the Truman Library in Independence, Mo.; he spoke of the need for ``farsighted leadership in the Truman tradition`` leading talk show host Rush Limbaugh to speculate that Annan was suggesting America use a nuclear device. In fact, Annan specifically mentions the importance of American action on anthropogenic Global Warming, which surely gives away what the SecGen is thinking; America must act Swiftly and decisively, using the type of bold, imaginative approach that ``Give `em Hell`` Harry Truman employed.

Back in the 1980`s, during the heighth of the Cold War, computer simulations (similar to those used to discover Mother Earth`s dreaded illness Global Warming) based on observations of the planet Mars discovered that a nuclear war would be followed by a nasty cold snap. This ``nuclear winter`` would, we were told, freeze the planet colder than Hillary Clinton, making life as we know it impossible. This gave birth to the nuclear freeze movement, of which such luminaries as John Kerry were proud members and which pushed for unilateral U.S. disarmament seasoned liberally with S.A.L.T. Once it became obvious that arms would not freeze, the science suddenly changed, claiming a nuclear cool breeze instead of an ice storm. Thus matters have remained-until now.

It`s baaack! Just when we thought it was safe to swim in Mother Gaia`s baptismal waters, the shadow of nuclear global cooling returns to shiver our collective timbers. Colorado U. professor Owen ``Brian`` Toon, one of the original 5 who brought Nuclear Winter to your screen has done it again; using newer climate models ``Looney`` Toon and his collaborators` have discovered that a limited nuclear exchange could kill many people (duh) and that soot from the exchange, lofted into the atmosphere, would drop worldwide temperatures:

Toon and his colleagues concluded that the nuclear blasts would trigger firestorms emitting more than 5 million metric tons of soot. Climate models showed that a large fraction of the soot would linger in the upper atmosphere for up to a decade - far longer than researchers had previously thought possible, according to co-author Alan Robock of Rutgers University.

The soot would block sunlight,cooling the global average temperature by 2.25 degrees Fahrenheit, an immediate drop that would persist for years. The cooling would shorten growing seasons by up to a month and threaten grain-growing regions in America and Eurasia.


My question is, is this a bad thing? The world has witnessed, we are told by the Green Gang, a 1.5 degree rise in temperatures in the last 150 years, with at least another 1 degree rise anticipated. Perhaps we could turn lemons into lemonade here?

Mother Gaia, we are told, is sick with a cancerous growth of Humanity. Man is using up all of Gaia`s natural resources, burning the old gal with fever via Global Warming, and clogging her planetary sinuses with oil-based pollution. Perhaps it is time for a little radiation treatment for her cancer?

The answer should be obvious-America should utilize atomic sterilization of the infection. Fifty nuclear warheads detonated throughout the Middle-East would, as Kofi has suggested, end this destructive conflict by liquidating (quite literally) the enemy. In the process we would reduce our dependence on foreign oil by eliminating the oil wells, thus opening the door to more sustainable energy sources such as wind or solar (er, well, solar may be a problem with all that soot). We will take a serious bite out of the overpopulation problem, and the 2.25 degree drop in temperatures will offset the damage we are doing to the Earth via Global Warming. Don`t forget, by drying up the sources of military conflict we will reduce the power of the military/industrial complex here and abroad, and so usher in an era of peace and plenty.

Considering some of the more esoteric ideas floated by the Gang Greens such as sunshades to reduce solar radiation or the injection of sulphur into the stratosphere this proposal is not really so far-fetched, and it certainly would be easier to implement. The benefits are far reaching, including the partial elimination of America`s stockpile of nuclear weapons (which would be a nice added bonus, since America is the top detriment to peace in the world as we all know). We already have the nuclear devices at hand-it is simply a matter of using our resources wisely. Mother Earth will thank us!

Are we prepared to do what is necessary to save the planet? Mankind is the problem, and Gaia will act in ways we cannot prepare for if we fail to take care of this matter ourselves. There are those who see the primacy of Nature over Man, and who have suggested the necessary steps:

Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.

Are we prepared to go the whole 9 yards? Do we really care about Mother Earth? If so, we should implement this modest proposal immediately. We have everything to gain, and our loses would be trivial.