Order the summer edition here

The abyss of peace

ORIENTERING 22. FEBRUARY 1969 / Report from Iron Mountain is a chilling satire that
affects the American social sciences and armaments industry.
The research report is a fictional document that shows what
which would happen if peace broke loose, concluding in a sober
scientific language that war is a necessity for ours
social system. In this way, the book – which has now arrived
in Norwegian as Fakkel-bok fra Gyldendal – also read as one
shocking revelation of habitual thinking and war preparations. It
Danish author Carl Scharnberg chooses to read the book as a
authentic and serious document and gives in this article a summary
of the «research results».


War is an indispensable necessity for preserving the social structure. War provides the only reliable system for stabilizing and controlling national economy. War is the source of all public authority that enables stable leadership. War is indispensable in the control of dangerous social discord and destructive, anti-social tendencies. War serves an indispensable function of population control and has long provided the fundamental, motivated cause of scientific and technological progress.

Therefore is
war inevitable.

This is it
conclusion reached by the Special Study Group in the report "On the possibility
for and the desirability of peace". The group was established in the USA in August 1963. It worked for 2 1/2
year. Its mission was:

1) to determine
the nature of the problems the United States would face if a condition
of lasting peace arose

2) to recommend
precautions to prevent this eventuality.

The report was
issued on 30 September 1966 and attached 604 annexes. The group recommended
urgently, that the report was not made public,
as it was recognized that in a democracy there had to be thorough, open and free discussions on all issues of
fundamental, public interest, but the necessity of carefully choosing the right time for one was emphasized
such debate. Out of elementary prudence, this should not come before
the public was psychologically accustomed to the questions.

The group's
existence and work were therefore a deep secret. The first and last meeting in
the group was held in Iron Mountain, the underground, nuclear-weapon-proofed facility
protective rooms, which are owned by the big companies (Standard Oil, Shell etc.)
to provide security for documents and prominent officials under one
nuclear war. The following meetings were held in a number of different states in the United States.

The conclusion of
the many discussions and analyzes were not a direct response to them
set tasks, but rather as follows: – Although lasting peace is not
theoretically impossible, it is probably unattainable. Although it could be created,
it would almost certainly not be in the interests of a stable society that
do it!

It would take too long to go through the report, which is now available
due to indiscretion on the part of a member. The few readers, one must estimate, have
interest in studying these things, will come up with the report himself, if
content is that such a species, so one can with good reason fear what it can do
entail, if unstable natures begin to deal with the document.
One will hardly be surprised to be confirmed that the economic impact of
general disarmament will change the world's production and distribution patterns in one
to such an extent that the changes of the last 50 years will appear insignificant. Not either
over having established that the political, sociological and cultural changes will
become equally wide-ranging. But the resulting consequences are still far-reaching
more ill-conceived, as so far, as the document states, it has been avoided that
cast a fearful glance into the deep abyss of peace.

sin of omission, as the leaders of and participants in the general public
debate has been guilty of, the Special Study Group has sought to make amends
on, and here is rather briefly its conclusion in this area:

1) None of them
proposed programs for economic adjustment to disarmament take place
sufficiently regard to the unprecedented extent that they required
regulations, it will entail.

2) Proposal for
transformation of arms production into a beneficial system for public works
is to a greater extent the result of wishful thinking than of a realistic understanding of it
the limitations of the existing economic system.

Fiscal and monetary policy measures are insufficient as
control for a demilitarized economy.

4) Attention has not been sufficiently drawn to, if they
proposed restructuring models' goals have been politically acceptable, and on those
political means, which must be used to implement a change.

5) In none of them
proposed adjustment plans have been seriously considered for the war and rearmament
fundamental, non-military function, as little as has been done
unreserved attempts to devise a viable substitute for it.

The report believes that being able to establish that it is an incorrect assumption that
war as an institution considered is subordinate to the social, it is assumed that
serve. The war is in itself the basic social system, within which
all other, secondary forms of social organization contend or conspire.
It is the system that has guided most of the known human beings
society, just as it does today. (And it is only in recent times that we have
considered it politically expedient to describe war budgets as
"defence expenditure", as governments' need to distinguish between "aggression" (bad) and "defense" (good) is a by-product of growing literacy and rapid communication. The distinction is only tactical
specific. With substitutes for the functions of war it is assumed that can be found,
but in this area there is little
prepared. Should a world without war be realized in connection with a social
stable organisation, it is necessary 1) to devise alternative institutions
2) where it can reasonably be assumed that there has been complete or partial lapse of earlier
functions do not need to destroy
the viability of future societies. The alternatives must meet a number of different criteria. For example, thus:

1) economic. An acceptable economic compensation for the war system would require the use of resources for completely unproductive purposes to an extent comparable to the military expenditures that the size and complexity of all societies would otherwise require. Such an alternative system with "waste" as its purpose must be of a nature that will allow it to be independent of the supply and demand of the normal economy – it must be subject to arbitrary, political control.

2) political. A viable political substitute for war must provide a common one
external threat to any society, of a nature and size, there is
sufficient to demand organization and recognition of political authority.

3) sociological: Firstly, when war is finally abolished, new ones must be developed
institutions, which can effectively control society's socially destructive
elements. In order to adapt the physical and
psychological forces according to the needs of the social organization must
a trustworthy one
substitute for war; secondly, create a ubiquitous and easily understandable one
fear of personal destruction.

The report
they suggest the necessary models: space exploration program, gigantic, endless mod
unattainable goals – massive, global pollution of the environment ... contrived, alternative
enemies ... a modern but more cunning form of slavery ... new religions ...

It would be
unscientific to strip up. The interested reader should review for himself
the report in its entirety: it is logical, concrete and will probably have a deep impact
shocking to the sensitive reader.


One can
publish the report in the belief that the "realists" will hardly be too involved
the depth that this report requires.

You may also like