Author
|
Topic: the most moral weapon ever invented?
|
Deep Dish
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9609
|
posted 20 August 2005 05:11 AM
http://boingboing.net/profits_of_fear.htmlThis is the most interesting article I have read in ages. My degree is in history, and I found quite often when I was doing research on someone I admired, I wound up not liking them very much or found something admirable in someone I had a low opinion of. This is one of those times I don't know what to think... this article is a must read. I am buying this book for sure. [ 20 August 2005: Message edited by: Deep Dish ]
From: halfway between the gutter and the stars | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039
|
posted 20 August 2005 02:08 PM
Most moral weapon ever invented?At first they (the Reaganites?)were 'peddling it' as the weapon that kills people but keeps property intact. But when there was an outrage about this they cooled that down. quote: the optimum effect of destroying life without damaging property.
Some morals. [ 20 August 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]
From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Deep Dish
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9609
|
posted 20 August 2005 02:38 PM
quote:
Such a weapon obviously would be more civilized than large-scale hydrogen bombs, and would also be more humane than conventional bombs, because it would create an all-or-nothing, live-or-die scenario in which no one would be wounded. A stream of neutrons cannot maim people. It will not burn their flesh, spill their blood, or break their bones. Those who receive a non-lethal dose will recover after a period of intense nausea and diarrhea, and Cohen estimated that their risk of subsequent cancer would be no greater than the risk we experience as a result of exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke. As for the rest, death would come relatively quickly, primarily from shock to the central nervous system. As he put it in his typically candid style, "I doubt whether the agony an irradiated soldier goes through in the process of dying is any worse than that produced by having your body charred to a crisp by napalm, your guts being ripped apart by shrapnel, your lungs blown in by concussion weapons, and all those other sweet things that happen when conventional weapons (which are preferred and anointed by our official policy) are used."
or quote:
As in septic tank, because that's what happens when a bullet hits you. The lead tears in there -- Makes a cavity of dead tissue that closes down in a convulsive motion typical of all gunshot wounds. The cavity fills up with bile and bacteria and you're fucked.
[ 20 August 2005: Message edited by: Deep Dish ]
From: halfway between the gutter and the stars | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039
|
posted 20 August 2005 06:16 PM
quote: This includes water pipes, sewers, eletctical lines etc... the civilian infrastructure. No drinking from sewers,
Good for the invaders but how is this moral when the inhabitants are all dead? edited to add: Oh I see! If the USians had just had the foresight to use a neutron bomb in Iraq, there would be no 'insurgency', in fact no Iraqis and the oil installations wouldn't have been attacked. The USA could just steal the oil. The treasures of the Iraqi National Museum wouldn't have been looted by Iraqis but "acquired" by the USians etc etc etc Are we talking about Machiavelli's 'morals'? [ 20 August 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ] [ 20 August 2005: Message edited by: VanLuke ]
From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Deep Dish
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9609
|
posted 20 August 2005 07:00 PM
The article would argue a strong deterent like the Neutron bomb would actually put an end to quite a number of conflicts, yes including the gulf war. Keeping in mind, these are "battlefield nukes" and only affect an area for a few miles - say a military base - and the Iraqi military did not provide a significant barrier for the Americans to begin with.You could still fight the Americans with guerilla tactics, yes and there is nothing that could really be done about that with a Neutron bomb. So in a Neutron bomb/Iraq scenario - the oil production would probably be in roughly the same shape it is now as a target for the guerillas but the water treatment plant would still function. Again keeping in mind, the article discussed Vietnam and Korea, so there is good reason it may not make sense to try to fight the last generations war today. But to turn your idea around a bit... The article goes on to point out that following the collapse of the Soviet Union, people weren't voting as much out of fear and electing more domestic minded governments like Bill Clinton - Bush Jr was floundering badly when he couldn't play the fear card and had to worry about the US economy crashing (pre 9/11). It also states that 9/11 gave an excuse to people who wanted to put the brakes on the new economy and innovation even though the actual number of fatalities involved pales in comparison to even traffic accidents. I agree this is a moral solution because it reduces the maiming and after effects like cholera that accompany war and mass destruction. I understand anti-war people aren't happy about this, but you don't stop people who carried out the holocaust or the rape of Nanking with group hugs. Keeping in mind also, China and Israel probably already have these weapons. [ 20 August 2005: Message edited by: Deep Dish ]
From: halfway between the gutter and the stars | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 20 August 2005 07:16 PM
Deep DishThermobaric Warheads can come in any size and from any weapon systems in production. The Russians have the warhead on many of their anti-tank missile launchers. A 'Crushing' Victory: Fuel-Air Explosives and Grozny 2000
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 21 August 2005 12:23 AM
The article also confirms the story, reported on Wikipedia, that Cohen was awarded a Peace Medal by Pope John Paul II.The book Shame: Confessions of the father of the neutron bomb is not available from the Toronto Public Library, nor apparently from bookstores or ChaptersIndigo.ca. It can be ordered online here. The same site also has an excerpt from the book. Here's an excerpt from the excerpt: quote: When Oppenheimer was able to finally quiet down the mob, he set about telling us what little was known about the results of the [Hiroshima] bombing. There was one thing he knew for sure: the "Japs" (not Japanese) didn't like it. More howling, foot stomping, and the like. Then he got to the nub of the matter: While we apparently had been successful, and his chest was practically bursting with pride, he did have one deep regret, that we hadn't completed the Bomb in time to use against the Germans. That really brought down the house.This had to be the most fascinating, to say nothing about being the most historic, speech I've ever heard. Apart from those who were there that night, I don't recall ever meeting anyone who had ever heard of it. There's an explanation for this that I won't bother to go into here because that's not what I'm writing about. That's a matter for a good investigative reporter with an historic bent to go into, and maybe get himself a Pulitzer award.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092
|
posted 21 August 2005 02:11 AM
quote: I think if you begin with the premise that wars are inevitable, what Cohen says is easier to take.
I didn't read the article, but I just had to comment on this. Why would anyone begin with this premise? Don't you realise that if we begin with this premise then we really don't need to go any further? All we have to do is abandon all hope and wait for the just-as-inevitable extinction of the human race. Haven't you noticed how wars just keep getting bloodier and more vicious as the weaponry gets more murderously efficient? The human race has the power, right now, to wipe itself out (and it's come close to happening on a number of occasions). This is entirely unique to the human experience, and it's also a fairly recent development. There's no precedent to look to, and we clearly haven't adjusted our mindset to our new reality. If there really is no stopping war then there really is no stopping this grim catastrophe from unfolding, and we're all fucked. I don't believe it. This is the crossroads right now. We can learn to stop slaughtering each other or we can all die in flames. We created this situation where there is no middle ground, and we have to acknowledge it, now, today, before it's too late. I'm no pacifist. If someone attacks me, I'll break their head. I believe in the military and in humanitarian interventions because it's not a perfect world, but the old notion of two nations squaring off is no longer acceptable behaviour. We can no longer hope to out-fight our opponents, because the wars of the future will not be won by anyone except the Grim Reaper himself. Our only hope is to stop these kind of conflicts before they happen. To build a concensus against military aggression and give it no quarter. The general population, as usual, sees the truth that pundits dare not speak. The world-wide reaction against the US's intention to invade Iraq showed that they had a new mindset for our new reality. Next time, it will be even stronger, and hopefully it will succeed. We can stop wars, and we will stop wars, or we will all die. We don't have any other option.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Deep Dish
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9609
|
posted 21 August 2005 02:15 AM
quote:
Why would anyone begin with this premise
Because I have pretty extensive knowledge of history and cannot come up with any long period of time with any significant level of world peace. I can show you times without capitalism, markets, money, or religion as we presently know it. I cannot show you a time without war. Also this article is about battlefield nukes and removing the world destruction scenario but keeping a few very destructive cards in the deck. Seriously, it is a very good read. [ 21 August 2005: Message edited by: Deep Dish ]
From: halfway between the gutter and the stars | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 21 August 2005 02:21 AM
quote: Originally posted by Webgear: Cueball Thermobaric Warheads have either been used or have been found in Iraq, Afghanistan and Chechnya. From my research they are easy to find and pretty cheap to buy on the black market.
Excelent news. So we can establish that any technical differential between occupying forces and indiginous resistance is more or less the same relative differential that existed between Afghans and Russians in the 1980's and the Vietnamese and Americans in the 1960's. While the technical capablilities of the regularly armies has been enhanced in major weapons systems, personal light arms have also improved.
Expect to find some personal night vision equipment out there Webgear, and as always good luck.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308
|
posted 24 August 2005 02:15 PM
quote: Those who receive a non-lethal dose will recover after a period of intense nausea and diarrhea, and Cohen estimated that their risk of subsequent cancer would be no greater than the risk we experience as a result of exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke.
This seems the key: Cohen estimates this, or says he does. I don't see any particular reason we should accept Cohen's estimate as gospel. All the outfits responsible for depleted uranium munitions swear up and down that they're totally safe, there's virtually no radiation involved, yadda yadda, even as cancer rates multiply in areas where they've been used. What's Cohen going to say, that his weapon would cause massive rates of cancer and leukemia among the survivors and/or anyone who comes to live there later? I think I'd like a second opinion. For that matter, taking second hand cigarette smoke as an example, here's something people have been experiencing in real life for as long as there's been insurance companies and still depending on who you go to, they might tell you the risk is major, minor, or that there is no risk at all. The latter estimate may be more likely to come from someone with a vested interest, like a tobacco company or front for same. So here we have Cohen saying his never-dropped-in-real-life bomb doesn't have any side effects. Well, I'm sure that's real credible. NOT. Anyway, talking about the most moral weapon is sorta weird and probably beside a huge number of points. I mean, the guillotine is the most moral execution method ever invented--certainly that was the inventor's objective, and it must be admitted that it kills nearly instantly and with perfect reliability. No pain, no frying people with electricity and having them sometimes live for a considerable time while the odor of their cooked flesh permeates their own nostrils, no lethal injections where you use two chemicals, the first to paralyze 'em so they can't scream from the pain of the venom coursing through their bloodstream (why they can't just feed people an overdose of morphine . . . ), no missed strokes, no wrong drop heights. Very very humane. Doesn't really make one feel better about the terror period of the French Revolution to consider they used a very humane method of execution, does it? I mean, I'm sure we'd feel *so* much better about the Nazis if they'd had access to different technology and said "well, you know, these gas ovens are a terrible idea. Inefficient, use too much valuable fuel. Let's just herd all the Jews into the camp, leave, and explode a neutron bomb, then come back and use the camp again!" [ 24 August 2005: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468
|
posted 28 August 2005 03:26 AM
Since this thread is about the morality (or lack thereof) of nuclear weapons, I thought I'd add a link to a PDF file of an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists by a physicist who quit the Manhattan Project for moral reasons.Joseph Rotblat was a Polish scientist who recognized early on the potential for a fission-based weapon, then pursued research into it over fears the Germans might develop such a weapon first. He eventually left Los Alamos in 1944 after it became clear to him that Germany posed no nuclear threat, and that the US was thinking of using the bomb against the Soviets--then anti-Nazi allies--at some future date. He went on to work with Bertrand Russell and Pugwash group towards nuclear disarmament. The article, which is worth a read in my opinion, closes thus: quote:
After 40 years one question keeps nagging me: have we learned enough not to repeat the mistakes we made then? I am not sure even about myself. Not being an absolute pacifist, I cannot guarantee that I would not behave in the same way, should a similar situation arise. Our concepts of morality seem to get thrown overboard once military action starts. It is, therefore, most important not to allow such a situation to develop. Our prime effort must concentrate on the prevention of nuclear war, because in such a war not only morality but the whole fabric of civilization would disappear. Eventually, however, we must aim at eliminating all kinds of war.
A broader perspective than Cohen's, I think.
From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|