>Nevertheless, unless the war/work machine is stopped, the technology of weapons production will continue to improve, eventually making not only the cities but the world uninhabitable. The suitcase nukes are just harbinger ofthat very silent spring.
No real disagreement, and yet -- a great uneasiness. I just keep remembering Helen Caldicott in the old anti-nuke movement.
<Paraphrase> If we don't get rid of the bombs by 1985, it will be too late. ... If we con't get rid of the bombs by 1988, the damage will be irreversible.... We must get rid of the bombs by 1992... (and going back "The Carters have visted 3-mile Island. They must never have any more babies." At the time I think Rosalyn was in her fifties. </End paraphrased Caldicott montage>
Now Caldicott is a wonderful woman. But after a while this kind of thing gets quite silly.
Your point is not silly. But in fighting against the end of the world, it may be counter-productive to place too much emphasis on the fact that it is the end of world that we are fighting against. And while there is no doubt where the slope leads, it may be a shallower, longer slope than we fear. I guess returning to an old cliche, the question is always HOW to balance pessimism of the intellect with optimism of the will.