I don't know anything. I just suspect things will keep getting worse because of all the unresolved plot threads dangling here and there. And, well, my thematic interpretation of the story and its recurring structures.
Rumsfeldia: Fear and Loathing in the Decade of Tears
- Thread starter Drew
- Start date
- Status
I don't know anything. I just suspect things will keep getting worse because of all the unresolved plot threads dangling here and there. And, well, my thematic interpretation of the story and its recurring structures.
Short of a massive nuclear exchange, drastic drop in life quality, massive environmental change or a megaplague, I doubt it. The world's population at this point would be about 5 billion (a bit of a pessimistic number, perhaps, but it's lower than OTL). The 20th century started with 1.65 billion people. I doubt we're going to lose 3-4 billions short of an alien invasion or meteor impact.
The nuclear exchanges, at least, I can see happening. Malan is going to take as much of Africa down with him as possible, and Israel may wind up doing the same in the Middle East. If I'm right about where Japan's going, they'll likely end up unleashing hell on China yet again. All you'd need at that point is an exchange between the USSR and their erstwhile allies in Europe, and most of the world will have been inundated with instant sunshine. Nuclear winter would definitely be in the offing at that point, to say nothing of the disruption to the international food market.
Thomas Malthus is getting a new lease on life in this timeline, regardless. Expect Ehrlich to explain how the Lesser Mao and Sanjay Gandhi were natural products of the overpopulation of China and India, bringing their populations back to environmental equilibrium.
It doesn't even have to be global. According to OTL research, a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan alone would be enough to wreak havoc on the global climate. Any of your hypothetical wars on their own could be enough to cause worldwide famine.
In the meantime, TTL already has the world's largest agricultural exporter become a basket case, not to mention the Rumsfeld Administration deliberately causing as much pollution as possible, instigating as many Third World conflicts as they could, disrupting food cultivation even further. Throw in the nukes already used by Coe and friends, and there should be a worldwide famine already, in all likelihood.
Bookmark1995
Banned
Well, there are people who in the ITTL future still write about Rumsfeldia.
So, I'm guessing there has to be some civilization if historical scholarship is still possible.
I suppose they'll need something to do other than sit in their mine shafts all day.
There may be a civilization, but who says it's a prosperous civilization?
Bookmark1995
Banned
Well, ITTL, Gingrich managed to get away with writing Rumsfeld apologia. If he can do that without being lynched, I guess things have more or less calmed down.
Or the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that his revisionism seems acceptable by comparison. Besides, who's to say he doesn't write from the safety of Israel or somewhere similar?
Bookmark1995
Banned
I wonder if he could apply the same thinking for America's collapse. America's growing dependence on oil lead to so much economic stress, that it paved the way for the growing radicalization and partisanship that would eventually destroy it.
That depends on how successful the incoming Israeli government is at burying the hatchet with their neighbors.
Even if political violence has subsided, living standards are most likely still gonna be far lower than OTL all over the world.
Bookmark1995
Banned
I don't know. I don't think the American population will accept any more "free market" policies, if only because they need outside help and charity to rebuild.
But I think there is a few reasons why Rumsfeld apologia might be...somewhat acceptable.
One, the CVs were way, way worse. The same way that the current problems in the Congo make some Congolese long for Mobutu or even the Belgians, even though both peoples were responsible for those problems to begin with.
Two, his impeachment and institutionalization, while richly deserved, was never about justice, but a bunch of equally corrupt men seeking to preserve their ill-gotten gains.
Three, by saying Rummy had a mental illness, it allows others to claim that the worse decisions were the result of manipulations.by people who took advantage of him.
But they still are growing from a low level, which means there is a recovery and some hope.
That assumes economic growth. In the face of nuclear winter, unheard of environmental degradation, international famine, and probably even more nuclear warfare, that seems a naive assumption.
Given how all those things are Rummy's fault in the first place, I don't see why Americans would think that MORE Rumsfeldian policies would be the solution.
EDIT: Nevermind, I thought @Bookmark1995 was replying to this.
Remember, Rummy himself was largely the fault of Nixon, Wallace and Agnew. Yet both the American people and the framing of this story conclude that those three are just who we need to deal with him.
I'm pretty sure Nixon and Agnew have disavowed their former political positions after seeing Rummy take them to their logical extremes.
Last edited:
It’s still moral hazard of the highest order. I honestly find it despicable that they’re just allowed to betray their most fundamental principles, one of the main ones being that criminals like them don’t deserve a second chance. Rummy and Coe have nothing on them in the hypocrisy department.
- Status