While visions of mushroom clouds danced in their heads...

August 24, 2006 9:13 AM

2006-2007 Doomsday Calendar. Plenty of Neocons went to bed on the 21st, anxiously awoke on the 22nd, and stayed awake through the 23rd, disappointed that their ongoing vision of the New American Century had been spoiled - Iran had not triggered the Apocalypse as some had hinted, breaking the sixth seal, making the 12th Iman ride across the skies, testing their first nukular weapon, etc. No, they wanted to talk. Fortunately, others are picking up the slack, since the prophesies for 5/25/06, 6/6/06, and 8/22/06 have not been fulfilled. Next date up to the plate for a vengeful God? BoingBoing reports that Yisrayl Hawkings says 9/12/2006 (youtube). The Doomsday Google Calendar is available here (XML/iCAL/HTML).
posted by rzklkng (28 comments total)

Everyday is doomsday. It's just a matter of perspective.
posted by blucevalo at 9:17 AM on August 24, 2006

Always bet against doomsday. You will win over and over and over.

If you lose, you won't care anyway.
posted by Malor at 9:20 AM on August 24, 2006 [1 favorite]

People have been waiting for some variety of this shit since Moses. You think we'd know better by now. Paul spread a message about Jesus that boiled back to "he'll be back real soon now. You watch."

Well, we've been waiting for the Apocalyptic Vision of the Jewish Faith to be fulfilled for, oh, eight thousand years? Let's put aside these ideas and get on with life already. I have things to do, man.
posted by boo_radley at 9:27 AM on August 24, 2006

While Bernard Lewis has egg on his face, I don't think it is fair to say that Iran "wants to talk," as the 5+1 talks have been going on for awhile, culminating in a package of incentives and threats that Iran was supposed to respond to a month ago. The response that they put together has nothing to do with the requests made by the UN, it is better to say that instead, Iran wanted to delay as much as possible any need to stop its nuclear program.

But the calendar is cool.
posted by blahblahblah at 9:27 AM on August 24, 2006

Amen boo_radley.

Unfortunately a lot of crazy people disagree with you and I.
posted by geekhorde at 9:30 AM on August 24, 2006

[End link has extra http:// at the start.]
posted by i_cola at 9:34 AM on August 24, 2006

The fact that Israel has nukes, and the Arab nations do not might be the cause of the tension. So long as moderates can deal with the deterrent of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) and keep the religious ideologues away from the button, it might not be an issue.
posted by rzklkng at 9:39 AM on August 24, 2006

Maybe when they all get nukes, they'll figure out they have to cool it and get along? India and Pakistan seem to have come back from the brink of the abyss at least once.

I admit I don't really know that much about the series of conflicts of Kashmir, but just in case, I'll don the flame-retardant Nomex BVDs now....
posted by pax digita at 9:43 AM on August 24, 2006

rzklkng: so long as moderates can deal with the deterrent of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) and keep the religious ideologues away from the button, it might not be an issue.

Those seem like two big "ifs" that I would rather not take the chance on, especially given that Iran is run by religious ideologues (it is a revolutionary state). Besides, Iran is not an Arab country, and many of the Arab nations feel far more threatened by Iran than Israel - opening the door to even more proliferation. It will also shield Iran from the consequences of any of its future proxy wars, which will probably intensify Shia-Sunni conflict, let alone Arab-Israeli conflict.

Arguments that mutually assured destruction is the best principle for international relations doesn't really work - more chances for mistakes, proxy wars, terrorism, and just plain crazies to push the button. I understand why Iran wants nukes (much more about the US than Israel) but I can't imagine that it is in the best interest of any other nation for Iran to have them. y2karl had some good pointers on this yesterday.
posted by blahblahblah at 9:55 AM on August 24, 2006 [1 favorite]

Arguments that mutually assured destruction is the best principle for international relations doesn't really work - more chances for mistakes, proxy wars, terrorism, and just plain crazies to push the button.

Who said BEST principle? Of course it's not the best principle. But it happens to be one of the few that has demonstrably worked at keeping the larger peace for over 50 years.
posted by tkchrist at 10:05 AM on August 24, 2006

Watch therefore, for you don't know the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming.

Matthew 25:13
posted by ZenMasterThis at 10:05 AM on August 24, 2006

The fact that Israel has nukes, and the Arab nations do not might be the cause of the tension. So long as moderates can deal with the deterrent of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) and keep the religious ideologues away from the button, it might not be an issue.

Therein lies the fear rzklkng. It's hypocritical to deny Iran nukes when Israel has them. If they had come out and said "Israel has nukes, so to maintain a balance of power in the region, we need them too" people would be up in arms, but how can you argue with that logic? Instead, he comes out saying that the Holocaust never happened, that Israel must be wiped off the map, and that martyrdom is a supreme virtue (the Palestinian Muslims that would die in a nuclear strike on Israel won't weigh too heavily on his conscious.)

MAD worked with the Soviets, but MAD depends on rational actors being involved. The rationality of Ahmadinejad is still up in the air.

Do I think he'll push the button? No, but the threat that nukes would carry would let him hold the region hostage. I wish we could have MAD and moderates calling the shots in the ME, but the Iranian regime is not a moderate one, in any sense. First, the moderates in Iran need to be empowered rather than jailed and killed. Maybe (and I really hope) this can be accomplished without regime change and another war, but if you know how to do this, please let someone in the White House know ASAP.
posted by SBMike at 10:06 AM on August 24, 2006

And we just finished cleaning up all that mess made from the apocalypse on Janaury 1, 2000 too.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:10 AM on August 24, 2006

I recently read the transcript of the Frontline episode about the evolution of apocalyptic belief that originally aired during the that Y2K thing. I wasn't able to watch the episode, but the transcript is an interesting read.
posted by monkeystronghold at 10:12 AM on August 24, 2006

Those seem like two big "ifs" that I would rather not take the chance on, especially given that Iran is run by religious ideologues (it is a revolutionary state).

The US is a revolutionary state, too. And increasingly we're run by "religious ideologues". We still get to keep the bomb.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:12 AM on August 24, 2006

"We still get to keep the bomb."..."so to maintain a balance of power in the region, we need them too," etc.

But stopping nuclear proliferation is not about being fair. It is about stopping more potentially countries from getting the bomb. Sudan would love a nuclear weapon, as would most of the Central Asian republics - and their desires have the same legitimacy as Iran's -- they feel threatened by external enemies. But it is in the interest of the world to prevent any additional countries from getting nukes.

MAD is inherently much less stable than a non-MAD world, because it requires the complete assured destruction of your enemy without regard to cirumstance, it needs to happen within minutes of an attack (so no time to ponder), and it can be triggered by mistake. Israel has not used its nuclear weapons in the forty years it has them, doubling the number of nations in the region that have weapons does not decrease the chance of their use, and will lead to more proliferation beside.
posted by blahblahblah at 10:22 AM on August 24, 2006

bbb: some of your points are good ones, i'm just pointing out more of the reasons the US has such a hard time positioning itself as if it's got the moral high-ground. for a revolutionary state, we spend an awful lot of time cautioning the world against the dangers of revolutionary states. and we're still the only country in the world to have actually used nukes. and by most accounts, we probably didn't really need one of the two we used. not to mention our current administration has actually decided to break from our existing non-proliferation treaty obligations and push for the increased development of tactical nukes. in light of all these facts, the US just doesn't look a whole lot like the most credible non-proliferation watchdog at this point in history.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:34 AM on August 24, 2006

It's none of our business if Iran attacks Israel. Supporting Israel (or any other country in the Middle East) isn't in the best interest of the US. We would be a lot better off if we stayed neutral in the middle east rather than taking one side of the other.

If Iran does attack Israel, we should just butt out, do nothing, and let them fight it out amongst themselves or destroy each other as long as they keep us out of it.
posted by mike3k at 10:37 AM on August 24, 2006

If Iran does attack Israel, we should just butt out, do nothing, and let them fight it out amongst themselves or destroy each other as long as they keep us out of it.

This seems just a bit naive to me. If you think that a nuclear strike and the resulting retaliation will be a conflict that only affects the two countries directly involved, you are fooling yourself.

If such a strike happened, it would decimate the populations of both countries, spread fallout over the entire region killing millions more, and would certainly start a regional if not world war. The US will get dragged in one way or another. If it ever comes to mushroom clouds, our world will be past the point of isolationism.

You could argue that supporting Israel isn't in the best interests of the US, but there's no arguing that it's in the best interests of the US (as well as humanity) to try to prevent such a scenario. There will be no "keeping us out of it" as far as Iran is concerned.
posted by SBMike at 10:56 AM on August 24, 2006

Repent sinners, the end is near.
posted by caddis at 11:43 AM on August 24, 2006

What I'd love to see is a compilation of recent, but past, doomsdays. Then my desktop calendar could say stuff like, "Aug 24: On this day in 1999, the rapture occurred. On this day in 2003, a giant earthquake caused by homosexuals and Jews destroyed the East Coast." (or whatever)
posted by hattifattener at 12:54 PM on August 24, 2006

I think a belief in Doomsday is just part of the reconciliation of ego and death. People want to believe that their lives are the most relevant, ever. In a way, they are correct, but for the most part, it leads to apocalyptic beliefs.
posted by owhydididoit at 1:22 PM on August 24, 2006

Does this mean I have to update ArmageddonOrNot?
posted by wendell at 5:08 PM on August 24, 2006

From the botched Iraq war to threatening Iran with "regime change," neoconservative policies have been a boon for Tehran.
posted by homunculus at 9:48 PM on August 24, 2006

Iran has been playing us like a fiddle, and Bush has been the best thing to ever happen to their leaders (just like he's been for Osama)--and already the media is falling for much the same bullshit we heard during the runup to Iraq.
posted by amberglow at 4:39 AM on August 25, 2006

"There is little doubt that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the war on terror in the Middle East."
posted by amberglow at 4:49 AM on August 25, 2006

Republican Congressional Report on Iran Riddled With Errors
posted by homunculus at 3:35 PM on August 25, 2006

At precisely 23:54:41 on 09/12/06 I suggest you play this song [mp3]. It's probably a good idea to pop in on your Ipod / Fakepod as you do that inevitable last thing before you die.
posted by takeyourmedicine at 4:23 PM on August 27, 2006