I’m so jealous of Switzerland. Those neutral bastards found the perfect scam to avoid being attacked. Terrorists and dictators don’t even consider attacking Switzerland because that country is famous for being, well, the country you don’t consider attacking. That’s what I call good homeland defense.
It’s too late for America to try the neutrality scam. And no one in their right mind would believe it if we tried. We need our own scam to avoid being attacked. I think I have an idea.
Obviously we’d have to stop attacking other countries, no matter how tempting it seems at the time. And we’d need to cut back on the “all options are on the table” talk. That sort of thing makes other countries jumpy. Presumably we only do those sorts of things for tortured reasons of self-defense, but a country with a good Switzerland-like concept doesn’t need so much self-defense.
First, some background to explain where my idea comes from. I might have the history wrong, since I’m working partly from memory, but I think it goes like this. In the late eighties, President Reagan was starting to get chummy with Gorbachev, the head of the Soviet Union, our Cold War nemesis. In 1988, a devastating earthquake hit the Soviet Union. Reagan offered the help of the United States.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_n2143_v89/ai_7465081
Millions of Americans donated money to help the earthquake victims in the Soviet Union. I remember giving some money myself, before I had much to give. And I literally remember standing in my kitchen in San Francisco and thinking “Why do we have nuclear missiles aimed at each other?” It suddenly seemed a little extra absurd.
In June of 1989, the Iron Curtain started to come down. Historians say it was Reagan’s military build-up that caused the Soviet Union to see the futility of the Cold War. I think it was the earthquake that caused them to see the absurdity of being enemies with a country that has your back when things get bad.
A good definition of “friend” is someone who offers help when you need it, and from whom you would be willing to accept it. Reagan’s offer of assistance after the earthquake, and Gorbachev’s acceptance, made us friends in fact if not yet in policy. The rest followed naturally.
Okay, so my plan is this. America becomes the disaster recovery center of the world. To some extent, we already are. We generally offer help when needed, and we have lots of assets for that sort of thing. But we haven’t taken it to the next level and “Switzerlandized” the concept. We need to be more known as the country that finds people under rubble, as opposed to our current plan of being known as the people who put people there in the first place.
Think of it this way: Who attacks a hospital? Even terrorists avoid that sort of target. America could become, with the right PR, the world’s disaster recovery go-to nation. We could even sign agreements with other countries offering our help in the event of natural disasters, no strings attached. If a country accepts that offer of help in advance, they become friends in fact, and it makes any actions to the contrary seem absurd to them internally. How much of your money are you willing to spend trying to kill the people who will help you when the earthquake comes? It makes more sense to attack Switzerland.
We could even charge for our world-class disaster recovery service, with a sliding price scale depending on the GDP of the nation affected. Germany would pay top dollar. North Korea would be free.
The beauty of this plan is that while Americans would not want to fund direct foreign aid to unpopular nations, few people would object to helping in the event of a natural disaster. And because of the “insurance” nature of the model, we would be giving something of great value to all nations while only spending the money for a few actual disasters. And best of all, we’d have the best disaster recovery resources for our own disasters when needed, especially if global warming pushes the hurricanes into overdrive.
We’d still need a bad-ass military, just in case. But it would be efficient if they were trained for dual purposes, both fighting and disaster recovery.
This plan is impractical of course, as are all of my peace plans. I just think it’s entertaining to figure out why.
Do you need new medical scrubs for your job but dont know where to get it from? http://www.cheapscrubset.com has everything you need and the prices you want. Usually it’s not cheap, they are very expensive but you can get cheap scrubs at http://www.cheapscrubset.com but the quality is not cheap, they are high in quality and they’ve been supplying these for more than 10 years. They carry a wide range of jackets, lab coats or scrub sets. They not only have plain colors but also printed/patterned tops. Besides tops or pants, you can also get medical clogs too.
check them out now at http://www.cheapscrubset.com
Posted by: lisa levy | February 29, 2008 at 03:51 PM
thanks
Posted by: Grup hepsi gruphepsi cemre eren gülşin yesemin | June 19, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Can Scott Adams replace an entire think tank? I think yes:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/oneworld/20070614/wl_oneworld/45361502941181864006;_ylt=AgiP4iOSpbHSpt7NbpbJcEcE1vAI
Posted by: briang | June 17, 2007 at 12:45 PM
This Plan shall be a Cornerstone to the Foundation of Flipping IT!! Collectively we who get IT can Flip what is NOW to what SHOULD BE by 2011. Scott's plan speaks volumes to what should be.
Remember, Aztec's believe that "The Last Great Human Destruction" occurs in 2011.
On what side of the X will you stand?
Flip IT!
Posted by: Bogart | June 11, 2007 at 05:02 PM
*clap, clap, clap*
This is the kind of thinking that will get us out of the messes we've been getting ourlselves into. And I don't think it's at all practical. A bit overly simplistic, maybe, but definitely practical.
Posted by: Turil | June 09, 2007 at 07:06 AM
We already give, give, give. And don't think they won't attack a hospital. They have shown no remorse or concern for the innocent; no respect for education or the well being of others.
Posted by: Gimble | June 07, 2007 at 12:00 PM
The Soviet Union collapsed due to the system (communism) being corrupt, from the inside. Regan had little to do with it.
If you haven't already watch the series of Documentaries by Adam Curtis (Power of Nightmares\The Trap\Mayfair Set), you'll find them on youtube\google video - I think you will like them.
Posted by: TSSP | June 06, 2007 at 09:22 PM
filthy liberal.
Posted by: matt | June 05, 2007 at 09:46 AM
Of course, it is easy to remain neutral if you are the country who looks after everyone's money with few questions asked...
Posted by: Martin | June 05, 2007 at 07:50 AM
Switzerland are not being attacked as the leaders of the world (including the terrosrist leaders) have their money there!!!
Posted by: Krishnan | June 05, 2007 at 04:55 AM
Scott,
I like your ideas. They are common sense but impractical and the world needs a lot of common sense.
Posted by: CKGO | June 05, 2007 at 01:40 AM
Scot, the plan is too good, but it is highly impractical as US is not good enough for that. Any nation which is able to implement this will be a land of saints.. and US is no way close to that (the means are too selfless and kind for and end that is too selfish.. this simply cannot exist.. means should justify ends and vice-versa)
comments about some comments:
1. Please stop assuming that US is the only rational country and terrorists are born bad, brutal people. (for all the comments which said terrorists will kill, no matter what)
2. US is not just the country that helps nations recover, but also the one which destroyed many nations, just because they were communist or getting in the way of its world domination (for all the comments which said that US already helps by providing drugs etc.). btw.. don't understand why US gets so anal about communist regimes, esp. when they are not forced on them... guess it was just a pretext to attack the only other country which threatened its domination during the cold war period...
3. there are just too many rogues who are/were funded by US in different time periods (including Osama once)... to reach their ends of world domination (in those times, they never threatened well-being of US citizens).. u r just reaping the rewards now... a bit too late for the plan maybe.. but if implemented, it will atleast help your future generations (but i suspect if your selfishness will help in saving your unborn grandchildren... am too cynical about this)
3. Even US attacked hospitals in Iraq, as they suspected Saddam to be hiding within. If you can justify this action, then I am sure terrorists will have their reasons
Bottomline: I am not saying that terrorists are good, but neither is US... good luck.. a fight between bad vs. bad, which is getting ugly... i am curious about the result :)
Posted by: Prasanth | June 04, 2007 at 11:01 PM
This idea is genius. I think you should try to promote it. It would certainly up the esteem in which I currently hold the US from not much to a lot.
Posted by: Martin | June 04, 2007 at 06:29 PM
I think you're right that helping out our neighbors when they have a disaster could help promote a little goodwill - until they weigh it against all the harm we do in the world. Noel and Stomper are on the right track; if we want to eliminate terrorism, we must address everyday poverty, powerlessness and ignorance like that displayed by Muttley who needs to turn off the Fox News channel and read a book - I recommend "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer.
The terrorists don't hate us for our freedom; they hate us for our gluttonous consumption and the fact that we prop up their oppressors.
It's true that we already spend money on foreign aid but as swiss points out, the Danes give a much higher percentage of GDP, 12.8% versus US, 0.7% putting US at #18 on the list, although, the US still gives the most money. The problem is most US aid is developmental and comes with plenty of strings attached and aids the donor more than it aids the recipient: "If we give you this money, you must use it to buy our food/construction equipment/military hardware, from this US company and oh by the way, you also have to stop passing out condoms."
Starving people don't need an electrical outlet to plug in a toaster, they need food to eat and clean water to drink and a safe place to sleep. Dropping bombs and spouting inane rhetoric doesn't provide any of those things.
Posted by: T.H.Reasoner | June 04, 2007 at 10:00 AM
Terrorists won't attack a hospital?
You haven't been in Tal A'Far Iraq have you? We had to occupy the hospital because terrorists and competing tribes had taken it over. They then regularly attacked the US and Iraqi troops there.
Terrorists attack anything.
But, overall, your concept has some merit.
Posted by: Dave | June 04, 2007 at 06:05 AM
Terrorists and dictator don't attack Switzerland because that is were they keep all of their money. If you are stealing from your people you have to put the cash somewere.
Even mentalists like Hitler knew that you don't rob your own bank.
Posted by: Rich | June 04, 2007 at 05:52 AM
foreign aid: the USA gives less in percentage of its GDP than Denmark.
referring to a nation as 'bastards' probably ain't the quickest way to make friends, by the way
Posted by: swiss | June 04, 2007 at 04:30 AM
Sounds good to me. I always thought that we ought to get other countries to pay for our (UK) military budget, since most of their work was helping out other countries. Certainly a preferable option to the nervousness the US makes around the world as it seeks to export our brand of democracy ...
And you're coming from the same place as Bono/Macphisto ...
"It's no secret that a friend is someone who lets you help.
It's no secret that a liar won't believe anyone else."
Posted by: Paul | June 04, 2007 at 04:02 AM
I don't agree with your prices. We Germans still have to pay for the reunion with our eastern part fifteen years ago; a phenomenon, which is obviously caused by the american policy of not letting us fall into Stalin's hands in the fifties. If the US only had shown a little interest in middle Europe, all of Germany would be economically devastated the same way, and we wouldn't have to pay "top dollar". I insist, that we are rated somewhere between the Czech Republik (higher growth rate) and North Korea (smaller poeple).
Posted by: Andi | June 04, 2007 at 01:57 AM
I love the idea. All nations with functioning governments comprised of (at least some) rational leaders will love America. That could even include Iran. For that reason alone it's worth doing.
The problem is that these nations aren't declaring war on America (why would they, they know they'll lose - even Iran would never declare war on America, they just hate America for its support of Israel). The people attacking America are a disparate group of nutters not acting on behalf of any nation, but bound together by an ideology. This action won't change their ideology, so they won't stop attacking America.
It could still help, though, since there may be less folk who want to support the ideological nutters, by funding them or giving them places to hide.
But this is a long-term solution - it still offers no solution to what the hell do we do about Iraq? Any plan that involves not having US soldiers driving about in armed Hummers for at least another year or two will always leave the US being branded as "The country that f***ed up Iraq and then abandoned them to brutal civil war", a brand that will not easily be replaced as "The country that helps anyone in a natural disaster". Unless there is a MASSIVE earthquake in Iraq in the near future...
Posted by: Richard Gosling | June 04, 2007 at 01:34 AM
Well yes, being friendly, trying to get along with people and not representing yourself as ignorant asshole is generally a good peace strategy.
Greetings from Lithuania
Posted by: Tomas | June 04, 2007 at 12:40 AM
not practical cos you got a bunch of religious zealots trying to start up wwIII armageddon as the prelude to the Rapture.
Posted by: loupgarou | June 03, 2007 at 11:30 PM
Sounds like a God Father -plan to me...
Posted by: Sofia | June 03, 2007 at 11:25 PM
not long after 9/11 there was a doco on New Zealand TV where they were interviewing one of the main saachi & saachi (big advertising company) guys. He said something about how as soon as 9/11 happened, NZ should've immediately sent a big team of people over to new york to help the cleanup and rescue operation and performed a haka at ground zero to kick it off. Cheesy, but can you imagine the good PR New Zealand would've gotten wolrdwide for doing that. Advertising guys generally have to know a bit about producing good PR so I doubt he was far off the mark. Your theory reminded me of that
Posted by: MH | June 03, 2007 at 07:18 PM
How depressing... I came on here to make the comment "Wow - what a great plan, even if it is impractical, it's a step in the right direction - thinking about how countries can help each other, rather than hurt each other"...
Then I saw all the other 'nay-sayer' comments, and general pessimistic moaning about how nothing you do will ever work...
It's gonna be a long hard fight to put the world to rights, and it's only going to be slowed down by people sitting and complaining, instead of directing their efforts into something positive.
Maybe I am too optimistic about people, but it seems to me that a good idea is worth trying out. Certainly better than letting the bad ideas win by default.
:)
Posted by: OJ | June 03, 2007 at 03:58 PM