The 'STAR TREK' Universe Is Definitely Preferable To Star WARS

Sanctuary district ca. 2024 in downtown San Francisco as depicted in Star Trek DS-9 'Past Tense'

With a new (50th anniversary) Star Trek movie  ('Star Trek Beyond') due out later this summer, and another Star Wars flick in the works for December, it's interesting to compare the two background universes.

The latest issue of FORTUNE ('Star Wars vs. Star Trek',  July, p. 30) continues the debate on which film (and TV in the case of ST) franchise is superior to the other in terms of how it depicts the future, for that universe. As a long time fan of both, I can easily say Star Trek's future for humanity is better hands down.

As the piece observes, while the Star Wars universe "is the ultimate example of an ineffective bureaucracy leading to a worse dictatorship (from the capital of Coruscant), "the United Federation of Planets (Star Trek) governs in the spirit of democratic socialism".

NO issue there, and the cornerstone two-part episode that really seals that discussion is Deep Space Nine's "Past Tense" Part 1 and II. (Which I have watched three times already, so compelling is it).

From the Wikipedia intro we learn:

"The crew of the Defiant is thrown back in time to 2024 on Earth. The United States of America has attempted to solve the problem of homelessness by erecting "Sanctuary Districts" where unemployed and/or mentally ill persons are placed in makeshift ghettos."

Let me note, and I put in the odd spoiler here, the actual future and history recorded for this ST universe  (bearing the United Federation of Planets)  was not the one into which Cmdr. Benjamin Sisko and his cohort were thrown. (See, e.g. 'The Star Trek Encyclopedia: A Reference Guide to the Future'   by Michael Okuda et al.)     No, they ended up in a twisted history version (thanks to the influence of "chroniton particles")  that never should have happened. Hence, they end up in a San Francisco where the super rich have it nice, and the 99 percent are unemployed and tossed into enclaves called "sanctuary districts" where they are basically offered only minimal resources and forced to prey upon each other.

The Wiki entry ends by noting:

" as this episode was finishing production an article appeared in the Los Angeles Times describing a proposal by the mayor to create fenced-in "havens" for the city's homeless, to make downtown Los Angeles more desirable for business. The cast and crew were shocked that this was essentially the same scenario that Past Tense warned might happen in three decades, but was now being seriously proposed in the present"

Which even thirty years ago showed we were already on the Neoliberal arc that would bring us to the horrendous present moment of inequality in which the top 40 odd billionaires in the U.S. own as much as the bottom 60 percent.

The rectification of the hideous past on offer in 2024 in the 2-part DS-9  episode, then led to the proper democratic socialist future portrayed in numerous episodes of Star Trek (and of the series, from the original, to Next Generation, to DS-9, to Voyager).  As often explained by one or other of the primary characters (e.g. Capt. John Luc Picard, Capt. Will Riker, Cmdr. Sisko) "the citizens of the Federation home planet (Earth) know no want. Everyone who wishes has employment and others are able to turn their free time into artistic pursuits. Education is free - though one must qualify in an exam to enter Star Fleet Academy- and there is plenty of food to eat.

One needs to watch hundreds of episodes to get at the bottom of the reasons for this fortuitous outcome which is essentially based on three major pivots: 1) The proper education of the citizenry so they are not fooled by PR, disinformation or the lies of self-interested politicians, 2) The intelligent control of reproduction so that the population can never grow to outpace resources, and 3) Technological advances that serve the bulk of the population, and which render continual development of war materials unnecessary.

Other relevant points made in the FORTUNE article:

- While some alien races (like the Ferengi) still covet coinage, money went the way of the dinosaur.

- Without affluence to dictate socio-economic status merit and reputation holds sway.

An added side point made (with reference to the new book, 'Trekonomics: The Economics of Star Trek') is that "finance is virtually obsolete and resources are abundant". The latter is likely on account of development of mining of ores, etc. from asteroids and other planets. The former likely because the planet is no longer caught up in cycles of deprivation and debt, owing to manipulations of markets and greed heads proliferating - as they do in the Neoliberal system. Thus, it's clear the future Earth of Star Trek is not under the 'market uber alles' boots of Neoliberals.

By contrast, what do we behold in the Star Wars universe? From the FORTUNE article:

- Take one look at the lavish lifestyle of Coruscant vs. the scavenging ways of Rey on Jakku and it's clear that inequality is rampant.

- Lots of cool tech exists but hasn't made its way to the people of the Earth or other planets yet.

Clearly, to me, while both universes may be entertaining in the framework of their respective movie franchises and characters, etc., it is the Star Trek universe most people I know would rather live in. Trumpies, of course, would naturally opt for an emperor and an empire as portrayed in Star Wars.

DO We Need A Missile Defense System in E. Europe? NO!

As the pundit gasbags on the Right continue to bloviate about Obama's "missile gaffe" (arising from an open mic in a recent meeting with Russian President Dimitry Medvedev, all sorts of conspiracy theories are being churned out. One (from Romney) implies our prez made some secret, slimey deal with the "Reds" that compromises national security. At least a few sane voices, mostly drowned out, observe (correctly) that there's nothing sinister at all, and Obama was simply delivering a stark political assessment. That is, given the nature of Reep-fomented gridlock in Washington, it's highly unlikely any new policies, or legislation or treaties will be passed before the elections in November.

But all of this bloviation and punditry overlooks the larger point: that the need for any "missile defense shield" in eastern Europe (mainly based in Romania and Poland) is as empty and bankrupt of value as the Reagan "Star Wars" bullshit of 25 years ago, and as stupid as Bush Junior's idiotic "national missile defense" system from ten years ago. (Of which this new system is really a makeover holdover- displaced to Europe). The fact is that none of these missile systems-shields really works, as particle physicist Wolfgang Panofsky first noted in his articulate chapter 'MAD vs. Nuts' in Particles and Policy (American Institute of Physics, 1994).

No such system has yet been devised (other than the limited "Patriot" batteries used in the 1990-91 Gulf War) that consistently can take down incoming missiles. (The Patriots worked about 50% of the time 'cause they were mainly going up against the crappy Iraqi SCUD missiles). In nearly every instance, as Panofsky points out, you are merely injecting a de-stabilizing force into a situation, and also one which - technologically - is always easily defeatable by appropriate counter-measures (which invariably are cheaper to employ that the measures that the anti-missile requires to nullify them!)

Even Stefan Niesiolowski, chairman of the defense committee in the Polish Lower House of Parliament has noted such a missile system is not needed in Poland. As he points out ('Missile Gaffe Leaves Europen Unfazed', WSJ, today, p. A8):

"There's no military threat and we haven't had a situation as secure as this in 300 years. The level of U.S. military engagement in Poland therefore is not of top importance."

WOW! No military threat? Then WHY do it?

The answer is simple: the military -industrial complex ensconced in the U.S. wants to invent ever more specious reasons to piss away ever more billions of our taxpayer dollars. And just like "Star Wars' and Bush's stupid system before it (where 11 of 12 intercept attempts failed and the only one that worked relied on a radiofrequency beam attached to the target missile), this Missile shield redux won't work either. Thus, it boils down entirely to monetary waste (for taxpayers) coupled with astounding extra profits for defense contractors and pork for congressional leeches. These are the sole purposes of this so-called "missile shield", which in the end, likely wouldn't shield the Poles or Romanians or anyone else from a raft of giant boulders fired by ancient Roman catapults.

Apart from that, the notion of Iranian missiles being lobbed into eastern Europe is totally ignorant. This is something that some moron brain stormer in the Pentagon would have dreamed up hoping the typical American would bite. First, Iran - even assuming it does possess enough quality IRBMs or ICBMs (say of a level comparable to the U.S. Titan I shown) wouldn't waste them on Eastern Europe! Second, they'd know in a heartbeat any such daft attack would be met with devastating counterforce, and maybe even tactical nukes. In a word, they'd be risking their own extermination.

Third, given these manifestly obvious reasons (and the fact that for such anti-missile systems to really work they need to nail the targets in the boost phase as Panofksy observes) the only conclusion left is that they're not really directed against "Iranian missiles" at all but against putative Russian missiles. THIS is why the Russians are eager to get this farce shut down, because they view such a shield as a threat to them. They interpret the shield as an effort by NATO-U.S. forces to neutralize any possible Russian attack, say if hostilities did erupt over Iran. (See the movie 'Threads' in a previous blog, i.e
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/03/anxious-to-start-war-with-iran-see-this.html

Add to that the historical fact - which clearly escapes the U.S. military-industrial complex- that the Russians have been highly paranoid of any military activity around their borders since the time of Peter the Great, and you have a made for demolition derby on the international scene. One that any knowledgeable Russian observer will assert that will not be tolerated by the Russians no matter how many "security" or "shield participation" PR bones get tossed their way.
This is why Ellen Tauscher, Obama's envoy for Strategic Stability and Missile Defense is dreaming when she claims (ibid.) that "the U.S. is seeking to get Russia inside the missile defense tent now".

This will not happen, not now or ever, because quite bluntly the Russkies do not see missile "defense" as a tent but as a THREAT! And there is no amount of diplomacy or whatever..that will convince them otherwise.

The best thing for the Obamanites therefore, is to drop this idea entirely, and tell the Pentagon and MIC to stuff it where the Sun doesn't shine. Don't even remotely consider using this as some form of political policy leverage vs. the always ready for war and increased defense -spending Repugs. They will ALWAYS want more military spending for any and everything - from missile shields, to more Mideast bases, to combat air brigades in Colo., to another 2,800 F-35s - in order to bleed down domestic tax revenues to enhance and justify their demand for deficit hawkism and austerity!

The worst part isn't the alleged "missile defense" unworkability, but that others (e.g. Russians) may bite and think it is feasible and a very REAL threat. This is the point made by Wolfgang Panofsky in his monograph, Particles and Policy, Chapter 'Mad vs. Nuts') wherein he observes that any U.S. missile defense system - practical or otherwise- will spur numerous counter measures and fully offensive nuclear systems. THIS is the stark danger we face!

The ultimate effect being to massively destablize the nuclear balance. Perhaps this is why the 'nuclear clock' (which gives a metaphor to the proximity of nuclear holocaust) has moved a full minute forward since the Bushites pushed the original missile shield. (See The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,Vol. 59, No. 6, 'Neocons: The Men Behind the Curtain', p. 62)

This is even more reason for Obama not to fall into the same snare.

Bottom line: we don't need a phoney-baloney, pork-program 'missile shield' that will only enrich the defense contractors, destabilize geo-politics and alienate long term allies. What we need is what I've said many times before: building security from the ground up, by people to people transactions, and engaging serious talks on dismantling remnants of Cold war nuclear warheads (especially in the former Soviet states) and rational settlements as opposed to political pandering.

Anything else is really just a deflection and distraction from the more important tasks and objectives, which lays a destabilizing groundwork we don't need, period. It is time to tell the military welfare queens (including the congress critters who stand to reap the pork benefits) behind this Rube Goldberg scheme to piss off.