Well, at the height of the cold war, there were enough nuclear weapons between US and Soviet stockpiles to incinerate every living person on the face of the planet about 14 times over. By the mid nineties, we'd dropped down to a level of only being able to manage 3 or 4 complete global annihilations. At the rate of decay of the current weapon's stockpile, by the end of the decade we might only be capable of destroying the planet once or twice so clearly, it's time to get cracking on some replacement bombs...
*sighs*
Yeah. Sometimes the world doesn't make much sense. Considering what my husband and many of his friends do for a living, I'd be a hypocrite if I complained too much about weapons of mass destruction, but it does seem like a waste of money and resources, not to mention a very sad statement on Global politics.
Perhaps most disturbing of all is the zeal and eagerness with which scientists pursue such discoveries, especially since for them, I am sure, it is primarily an academic challenge. There is this thrill in finding a way to do things more efficiently: to improve on old designs, and the fact that in this case those "things" and "designs" are "killing" and "bombs" is probably not considered nearly as often as it should be in the excitement of experimentation.
After all, the generation who can still remember Hiroshima is dying out very quickly now. Here's hoping humanity doesn't need another demonstration of how nuclear warfare really works to refresh our memories and ethics.
And it's not that I can't understand the need for self-defense, or that having a military without any weapons is just pointless, but rather our what's being shown here as enthusiasm for new means of killing people.
Or in this case, an old method revisited. Which might almost be worse.
Ok, so yeah, first I would like to add a hearty WTF to the chorus. And second...
I think you have a point here. A military without weapons?!? How could would that be! Especially if ALL militaries had no weapons. Wars would be just groups of dudes going at it hammer and tongs!!! And then someone would throw a rugby ball on the field and everyone would forget what they were fighting for and try and scrimmage. (or something, I know jack about rugby, except its violent)
Completely off topic: pardon me while I do the habitual Swoon over that icon. *swoons*laughs*
ahem.
But back on the subject, I don't believe these scientists are enthusiastic about killing people: I think they're enthusiastic about efficient fusion mechanisms, micro-explosive detonators, improved critical mass calculations, and "Tactically viable payloads." It's sort of the same thing you saw with Oppenheimer on the original Manhattan project in that to a scientist, knowledge is simply knowledge and its pursuit is everything. The end stage applications and the ethcial implications thereof just aren't considered until the puzzle is solved, the equations are written, and suddenly five square miles of New Mexican desert fuses into warm, irrevocable glass. That was the moment when the team broke out the champagne and Oppenheimer himself started quoting Hindu texts ("I am become death..." etc.). Never mind that fusion energies and power plants are based on many of the same equations.
But there are so many cases of this happening in science these days. I mean, in the course of developing new and improved vaccines, virologists have also refined means of producing, storing and delivering some of the most horrifying diseases you can imagine. And the same telecommunications technology that allows me to chat with my hubby on AIM when he's far far away can guide a missile from the deck of a ship in the Bering Sea straight to a boardroom in North Korea. The gps that tells me how to drive to Las Vegas was originally meant to help a soldier find the people he's supposed to be killing, and the list goes on and on.
So the question becomes: at what point do we stop? Who decides which knowledge is too dangerous to go after? Is there really any way to ensure that the bioengineering that will prevent babies from being born with congenital defects will never be used to facilitate pre-emptive genocide of racial characteristics? And I guess that's where I get all hung up and twisted in the gut, because I was taught to go after knowledge and to study and quantify the world I live in, but even I get nervous at the ways some discoveries can and will be used.
um... ^^; Sorry. Something of a hot button issue for me.
Although, rereading your comment, perhaps it's just the media's portrayal of the project that's concerning? On that, I would completely agree. *smiles*
No, I get exactly what you're saying. Heh, and yeah, I was speaking a lot more to the way in which the media feels the need to build these kinds of things up as something brilliant and wonderful -- and I'm not talking about the science of it, because that IS all those things, but the insanity of trying beautify war and destruction and all of that.
Uh... Heh. I'm not sure if I make sense any more, but yeah. *wrrrrrry*
The enthusiasm behind the project (people willingly working overtime) and that it's seen as an actual race (ooh! omg, we should totally win!!!1) is beyond disturbing to me. I still can't shake the chills. :o\
After being to Hiroshima and seeing the things I saw...
You can't stand in front of this building and then think that nuclear bombs are necessary for protection or whatever screwed up reasoning they have for creating more. You just can't.
PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS.
The average human is smart. But PEOPLE are idiots.
Yep, about 50 yards from ground zero. The bomb itself didn't actually hit the groune. It exploded a few hundred yards above the bridge that was "ground zero." This was the only building within a mile radius to have retained any semblance of its original structure. Just about every other building was completely reduced to rubble. ;_;
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Oy vey . . .
Date: 2006-06-15 04:20 pm (UTC)Re: Oy vey . . .
Date: 2006-06-15 06:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-15 04:27 pm (UTC)*sighs*
Yeah. Sometimes the world doesn't make much sense. Considering what my husband and many of his friends do for a living, I'd be a hypocrite if I complained too much about weapons of mass destruction, but it does seem like a waste of money and resources, not to mention a very sad statement on Global politics.
Perhaps most disturbing of all is the zeal and eagerness with which scientists pursue such discoveries, especially since for them, I am sure, it is primarily an academic challenge. There is this thrill in finding a way to do things more efficiently: to improve on old designs, and the fact that in this case those "things" and "designs" are "killing" and "bombs" is probably not considered nearly as often as it should be in the excitement of experimentation.
After all, the generation who can still remember Hiroshima is dying out very quickly now. Here's hoping humanity doesn't need another demonstration of how nuclear warfare really works to refresh our memories and ethics.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-15 07:18 pm (UTC)And it's not that I can't understand the need for self-defense, or that having a military without any weapons is just pointless, but rather our what's being shown here as enthusiasm for new means of killing people.
Or in this case, an old method revisited. Which might almost be worse.
hold on a second...
Date: 2006-06-16 01:38 am (UTC)I think you have a point here. A military without weapons?!? How could would that be! Especially if ALL militaries had no weapons. Wars would be just groups of dudes going at it hammer and tongs!!! And then someone would throw a rugby ball on the field and everyone would forget what they were fighting for and try and scrimmage. (or something, I know jack about rugby, except its violent)
in the world of my head, cool shit goes down.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-16 04:03 am (UTC)ahem.
But back on the subject, I don't believe these scientists are enthusiastic about killing people: I think they're enthusiastic about efficient fusion mechanisms, micro-explosive detonators, improved critical mass calculations, and "Tactically viable payloads." It's sort of the same thing you saw with Oppenheimer on the original Manhattan project in that to a scientist, knowledge is simply knowledge and its pursuit is everything. The end stage applications and the ethcial implications thereof just aren't considered until the puzzle is solved, the equations are written, and suddenly five square miles of New Mexican desert fuses into warm, irrevocable glass. That was the moment when the team broke out the champagne and Oppenheimer himself started quoting Hindu texts ("I am become death..." etc.). Never mind that fusion energies and power plants are based on many of the same equations.
But there are so many cases of this happening in science these days. I mean, in the course of developing new and improved vaccines, virologists have also refined means of producing, storing and delivering some of the most horrifying diseases you can imagine. And the same telecommunications technology that allows me to chat with my hubby on AIM when he's far far away can guide a missile from the deck of a ship in the Bering Sea straight to a boardroom in North Korea. The gps that tells me how to drive to Las Vegas was originally meant to help a soldier find the people he's supposed to be killing, and the list goes on and on.
So the question becomes: at what point do we stop? Who decides which knowledge is too dangerous to go after? Is there really any way to ensure that the bioengineering that will prevent babies from being born with congenital defects will never be used to facilitate pre-emptive genocide of racial characteristics? And I guess that's where I get all hung up and twisted in the gut, because I was taught to go after knowledge and to study and quantify the world I live in, but even I get nervous at the ways some discoveries can and will be used.
um... ^^; Sorry. Something of a hot button issue for me.
Although, rereading your comment, perhaps it's just the media's portrayal of the project that's concerning? On that, I would completely agree. *smiles*
*runs away to hide and stop spamming your lj*
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-17 09:44 pm (UTC)Uh... Heh. I'm not sure if I make sense any more, but yeah. *wrrrrrry*
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-15 05:06 pm (UTC)The enthusiasm behind the project (people willingly working overtime) and that it's seen as an actual race (ooh! omg, we should totally win!!!1) is beyond disturbing to me. I still can't shake the chills. :o\
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-15 06:54 pm (UTC)/sarcasm
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-15 07:18 pm (UTC)You can't stand in front of this building and then think that nuclear bombs are necessary for protection or whatever screwed up reasoning they have for creating more. You just can't.
PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS.
The average human is smart. But PEOPLE are idiots.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-15 07:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-15 07:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-16 01:04 am (UTC)Seconded.