Last night I watched a terrific programme on SBS world television. It was all about the sinking of the Titanic, covering so many aspects never shown on TV before. I was struck by the atmosphere on the ship, in the early hours of the sinking, with many people, particularly the rich upper-class passengers, taking the whole process as something not really serious, rather fun even. Of course, not all of them saw it that way. But enough of them – to be able to have quite a good party on the upper deck lounge, and to regard the messenger calling them up on deck as rather a nuisance, an ignorant lower-class person. And indeed, some people just refused to leave their (temporarily comfortable) beds, on such a cold night.
And here was I, trying to get my mind away form the rather scary world news. I suppose I’d have been better watching some “reality” show, or that good old Australian standby – sport.
Anyway, the thing was – the Titanic story showed how people are inclined not to take a critical event seriously, not to worry about it, until it’s too late.
And lo and behold, the same sort of thing is happening now. Today DW reports Iran war: Israel hits Iranian heavy water nuclear reactor.
The good old news.com.au writes ‘Worst case scenario’: Wall St craters, oil surges as nuclear sites hit’. The fascinating part of this coverage, as shown by that last headline, is that the financial aspect is the first priority… Yeah, I know that the world economy is important, and it’s not a good thing to have Wall St stocks going down, and investors “mashing the panic button.” I’m not saying that this is a trivial matter. It’s just that drone or missile strikes on a nuclear facility could be a helluva lot more serious than a drop on the stock exchange.
We don’t need an actual nuclear bombing to create a massive environmental and health catastrophe, a drone strike can do that job.
Both articles focus on this economic crisis, paying barely lip service to the fearful physical danger of a nuclear site being exploded, or even just damaged. Israeli air strikes hit a nuclear research reactor in Iran’s Khondab region, and a uranium processing plant in Yazd in Central Iran. The reports hastened to tell us there was no release of radioactive material. How reassuring! We can focus on the main issue – the share prices.
Questions come to mind. Will Iran retaliate by striking Israel’s Dimona reactor and other nuclear sites? How come it’s so terrible for Iran to have legally permitted nuclear research facilities, but apparently OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons. Estimates of Israel’s nuclear warheads range from 90 to 200, but Israel “does not confirm or deny” its nuclear weaponry numbers. So that’s apparently OK.
Yes, we’re all anxious about our petrol and diesel prices, and naturally so. But the possible ramifications of these Israeli strikes on nuclear facilities add up to something more horrendous. I don’t want to rave on here about the health, environmental, social toll that will ensue, if the warring states decide to use this very convenient weaponry – no need to have your own expensive nuclear bomb, just send a few cheap drones to attack your enemy’s nuclear sites.
As with those rich passengers on the Titanic, it’s time that world leaders woke up.
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Please consider donating now via:
PayPal or credit card – just click on the Donate button below
Direct bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
We’ve also set up a GoFundMe as a dedicated reserve fund to help secure the future of our site.
Your support will go directly toward covering essential costs like web hosting renewals and helping us bring new features to life. Every contribution, no matter the size, helps us keep improving and growing.
Thank you for standing with us – we truly couldn’t do this without you.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team
Yes! Rather like the seriousness needed to avoid the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people due to COVID, sorry l meant all the lost income due to people staying at home.
One ridiculous economist actually compared the choice with lockdown or let it rip to the old trolley problem. Kill one person or kill humanity.
Good article. This is a very frustrating time in modern history and it is increasingly harder to avoid a desire to eliminate some obstacles (specific people) lest they destroy the rest of us.
One question that bothers me, is the thought of Netanyahu using nuclear weapons against Iran. We know Iran doesn’t have Nukes.
Israel has them, and Netanyahu may well choose to use them.
With all the hype about the vessel, why would the rich listen to a vassal?
Loved the ending ‘woke’. Did you mean that it is time for ‘world leaders’ to wake up to something or for them to become ‘woke’?
ps
Anon, spot on!!!!
The religious nutters, jews, xstians and muslims, all believe in armageddon, with the bomb for god, providing adequate fire and punishment.
Noel Wauchope writes “Anyway, the thing was – the Titanic story showed how people are inclined not to take a critical event seriously, not to worry about it, until it’s too late.”
Years ago… 10, 15 maybe, Phillip Adams had an American guest on his RN program Late Night Live, an academic whose thing was people’s behaviour in the face of crises. His view, that evening, was that the global-warming climate crisis would not be taken seriously until the water was lapping at the doorsteps. Which, 10, 15 years later, it is, in some parts of the world, with unprecedented rainfall and flooding and tidal surges wiping out infrastructure and people’s sense of normality with rising frequency. Physics. Not a topic which most people bother to think about, but it’s behind the whole of these manifestations.
Yes, indeed…. in years to come it’ll be referred to as the Titanic syndrome.
Reply to Canguro. Your comment reminds me of how much I miss Phillip Adams. I hasten to mention that David Marr is doing a great job on Late Night Live. Phillip Adams was unique. With very little formal education, he just sort of “covered the waterfront” in his varied interests – attracting to the programme great thinkers like Yanis Varoufakis, and also causing serious journalists like Laura Tingle to fall apart under his wacky humour.
Cangaru, the guest said global warming not CLIMATE CHANGE. The danger is glacial and permafrost melts due to global warming from the greenhouse effect.
The emphasis on climate change hides the current danger behind a possible, probable, may, in 30 years, dangerous natural happening.
Even the dumbest of us know Climate is not scary, so to prattle on about it, is stupid.
Wam, nuance, old mate, is a useful tool. The terms ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ have been referenced so often, so repetitively, that there exists an argument for their interchangeability / correlation.
Climate not scary? Huh! Those who’ve perished in the outback through heat stress, or drowned in floods – an Australian speciality given the number of drongoes who insist on driving across flooded creeks & rivers – or frozen to death on icy peaks or had their houses and livelihoods ruined in cyclones and tempests might argue differently.
But yes, you’re correct, the dumbest believe that climate is not scary, others may take a different view.
WOW Canuro, ‘nuance’ in relation to me or deniers is bullshit.
What have your examples, got to do with climate change?
Australians have suffered such terrible deaths, in living memory, I remember the ’56 floods of the murray in SA.
Historically, the gundagai flood 1852 killed a 100, with similar flooding in nsw, vic, SA WA and Tassie over the next 174 years.
So it is obvious climate is scary but climate change, as portrayed by is, like the odds of the titanic sinking, not a worry. Global warming, a la Stephen Hawking ‘who warned us not to ignore the scientific facts of global warming’, should be scary but link it to climate and any worry dissipates or disappears.
Mr Muir, on this matter, we’ll agree to disagree, given it seems to be a discussion over the relevant aspects of syntax and the general acceptance of terms. You go your way, and I’ll go mine.
haha Canga, I’ll leave the last word to you.
Oops, sorry, Cangu, where did you find Muir? Wrong as is syntax.
You need to talk to a someone who is intelligent enough to understand my point about climate being dangerous and change being natural.
ps Did you understand the point of the rich believing the titanic to be indestructible till the water is lapping at their feet? If so apply it to climate.
Bugger it I agree the danger, is real, the melts are real, global warming is real and we adding to nature’s climate is real.
You agree that global warming affects climate change.
The difference being I use the cause you use something else.