Stepping into a 'mind-field' . . .

North Korean Missile Launch

(Scary Image from Wikipedia)

A military response is too dangerous, diplomatic efforts seem futile, and economic sanctions will never be uniformly applied, so what's to meet the North Korean threat? In a recent Seoul Times article, "South Korea Needs a Defense System Beyond Nuclear Weapons" (June 1, 2009 issue, but available in the June 5th issue, and also on Frontier India's site for the June 1st issue), Dr. John Hagelin and Dr. David Leffler present a rather unusual proposal -- but a proposal to be taken seriously, for Dr. Hagelin is a physicist with a really, really, really high IQ, and Dr. Leffler is a military expert who has recently presented a paper on this very issue at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses as well as at Seoul National University and the Korea Military Academy -- and these two intellectual luminaries tell us:

A proven new technology of defense is now available -- a technology of national security, fully capable of defending South Korea from any destructive technology, including nuclear weapons. Militaries have already applied this technology in order to defuse and eliminate conflict. Extensive research has confirmed its effectiveness. This new technology is easily applied, highly cost-effective, and can prevent disruption and attack from within the country or outside the country.

Sounds too good to be true . . . but this stuff is scientifically sound:

This new technology of defense is based upon the latest discoveries in the fields of physics, neuroscience, and physiology. Ultimately, it is based on the discovery of the unified field of all the laws of nature -- the most fundamental and powerful level of nature's dynamics. Technologies based upon this unified field of natural law have such concentrated power that they can render obsolete and irrelevant every previous objective technology and destructive means of defense.

Is this new technology some sort of lasar-based anti-missile defense system? No, it's far superior to that crude science:

This capability of this unified field-based defense technology is the basis of the world’s traditions of meditation.

Oh. Meditation. Well, just as a thought experiment, how would this proposal be carried out? Easily:

If the military of South Korea were to apply this human resource-based technology, which is non-lethal and non-destructive, it could reduce the collective societal stress that is fueling the rising tensions between North and South Korea . . . . A Prevention Wing of the Military would be the ideal way to achieve this goal. This wing would comprise about 2 to 3 percent of the military of South Korea. The remaining personnel would carry out their normal military duties. The Prevention Wing of the Military would be trained in the primary components of IDT [Invincible Defense Technology]. They would practice these technologies in large groups, morning and evening.

At even the lower 2 percent of the 655,000 active forces, that's 13,100 soldiers (though as high as 73,900 out of 3,695,000 soldiers if the 3,040,000 regular reserve are included), which might sound like a lot of South Korea's military personnel to fund just for staring at their navels and chanting 'ohm', even for an invincible defense, but it's really quite a tiny percent of the entire South Korean population:

[This is a] group of IDT experts equaling or exceeding the square root of 1% of the population of South Korea.

I wish that Hagelin and Leffler could be a bit more mathmatically precise . . . and how many IDT experts would one need out of a population of, for example, 200 individuals? Roughly 1.414? Seems a bit irrational to have slightly fewer than one-and-a-half people, but I guess that the authors would round that up to a whole number. But let's just check the figures. South Korea's population is about 48,379,392, so one percent of that is 483,793.92, and the square root of that is 695.55. I suggest that we round up to 696 soldiers. If that's all the soldiers required, why are we being asked to fund 12,404 more?! I suspect pork-barrel politics. Be that as it may, the benefits of IDT extend beyond military ones at this threshold of the square root of 1%:

Studies show that when the required threshold of IDT experts is crossed, crime goes down in the affected population, quality of life indices go up, and war and terrorism abate.

Why, then, are we leaving this up to the tax-funded military? I suggest that we set up a distributed network of independent IDT experts linked by our mental powers . . . and by the internet, of course. A distributed network would work best because just in case this Invincible Defense Technology proves less than 'invincible', the network can better survive attacks by enemy forces, as demonstrated by a glance at Paul Baran's depiction of three types of networks (from Martin Dodge's Atlas of Cyberspace):


Clearly, a centralized network can easily be taken out by a single pinpointed missile attack, a decentralized one far less easily by a number of pinpointed missile attacks, and a distributed one not at all unless by many, many, many such pinpointed attacks! Now, I haven't studied Hagelin and Leffler's specific IDT techniques of meditation, but I've been meditating on their article for a couple of days now, and I already feel a lot more enlightened, so I'd be willing to share my insights with others who might wish to set up a distributed network devoted to 'working' for peace on the peninsula. For a small fee, of course. Insights are intellectual property protected by law . . . even in Korea.

Just contact me at Gypsy Scholar's Concept Crunching. Motto: "I think, therefore I am going to make it big someday!"