Slashdot Mirror

There are lots of high tech workers that read slashdot. I'm one of them. I decided, while at university, that I was not going to spend my life building weapons. Working on weapons certainly was an opportunity that presented itself when I was getting my degree in the late 80s. I do not want to create weapons because I would have no direct control over whether those weapons were limited to truly righteous causes.

If you work on software, and don't personally control the licensing to assure who uses it, you risk that it will be used in (or to coordinate the use of, or to support the development of, or in some other way related to) weapons, where you will have no control over whether the weapons are used in "truly righteous causes".

There is a huge difference on working on something that could be used to develop/deliver weapons, and the weapons themselves. Almost all complex weapons engineering is going to use CVS/Subversion/Git, or some other code management system, but the authors of CVS/Subversion/Git, aren't sitting down and thinking "how can I more effectively kill people?". They probably aren't even close to thinking "if we can make code check-in/out more efficient, then it will really help out the people designing Death Robots." The actual moral decision shouldn't be "I only want my weapons used for righteous causes", it should be "how many intentional deaths from my creation can I live with?".

http://www.pugwash.org/about/manifesto.htm

Sorry, what do weapons have to do with scientific revolutions?

Wernher von Braun and J. Robert Oppenheimer would be my examples of weapons scientists, but scientists can be pacifists, too. Joseph Rotblat quit the Manhattan project, and later received a Nobel for his efforts to encourage disarmament. Linus Pauling had a change of heart after WWII and spoke out against nuclear testing, among other things. And I think that if you talk to people today, many will express reservations about working for the military-industrial complex.

Regarding world views, Einstein had the "right" world view for the theories of relativity. However, his world view could not accommodate quantum mechanics. Despite facilitating a paradigm shift in one area of theory, Einstein was unable to accept a different shift in a different area.

I disagree that "academics are not open to new ideas". The problem these days is that there are very few "disruptive" ideas. There are few new theories worth exploring; we are mostly nailing down the outer reaches of existing ones, and discovering that what we have got works extremely well. Every scientist wants to push the envelope. After all, scientists are rewarded with Nobel prizes for radically shifting our understanding of nature.

We live in a post-Kuhn era, where the phrase "paradigm shift" is cliché. Scientists are well acquainted with his ideas, whether explicitly or implicitly. The last thing we need is a bunch of people telling us that we're locked into our paradigms, because it's simply not true. When the LHC starts up, everyone is hoping that new physics will be found, because accumulating more data to reinforce existing theories is not terribly exciting.

From the article: He [Chirac] said the government will set up this year an independent authority to oversee the safety and security of France's nuclear power industry.

Probably a little off-topic but...

Europe warms to Nuke ? C'mon who's surprised ?That we are all gonna rely on nuclear power is no news, no surprise because simply said we (western folks) are too energy greedy to have any alternative providing sufficient power. This last statement is exemplified by Germany position: one of the most radical decision was made about getting rid of all nuclear power plant by 2020. Here we are (2006): there is no choice but to have nuclear, because it is today the only way to satisfy our sick demand. And Germany says "well maybe..."

The hijacking toward weapons... Chirac's statement is IMO *the* thing to be noticed because it relates to nuclear safety. Indeed today the main problem with nuclear power plant is human hijacking with goals of producing nuclear weapons. Mr. Charpak (physics Nobel price), Garwin and Journé explains well that the priority for now (I mean Monday 9 Jan 2006) is to set up an independent international authority with all powers: zero delay, unplanned inspections in all plants; no exceptions in every country. The priority is really to control precisely what happens with all nuclear fuel materials as well as waist materials.

Mr. Chirac wants to create a national authority ? Good. Not enough. Let's go for this international one which so much needed.

Go and read this book De Techernobyl en Tchernobyls (fr) (ref below). Pretty amazing things to be learned. To get a picture of how serious the problem is see the old The Russell-Einstein Manifesto. BTW discover the little known Pugwash organisation.

About availability of nuclear fuel. In the same book it is explained that sea water contains uranium. Precisely (page 195): Estimated 2.10^9 tones are available in sea water. By 1998 the Japanese estimated extraction cost at 100 USD per Kg. That could supply 2000 traditional nuclear power plant for 5000 years. So... it seams there is some FUD about fuel availability.

Reference: (fr) - "De Techernobyl en Tchernobyls" - September 2005 - G. Charpak, R.L Garwin, V. Journé - Edition Odile Jacob - ISBN 2-7381-1374-5.

Bye. Z.

Actually, Russia abandoned its No First Use (NFU) doctrine after the end of the Cold War. It no longer renounces the first use of nuclear weapons. As you pointed out, the US has never renounced first use. I know Pakistan and Israel have not. Britain recently stated it might reply to a non-nuclear WMD attack with nuclear weapons, and NATO (including Britain and France) reserves the option as well. Only two states still have NFU. China has always had an unconditional NFU doctrine. India has been under internal pressure to abandon its own NFU pledge.

A comprehensive summary of existing policies is available at this site.

Any justification for India being on top of your list???
You seem to be severely misinformed. India advocates the policy of no first-use of nukes. And the reason you give is flimsy because India can steam roll Pakistan in any conventional war like it did in 1965, 1971 and 1998(a small one) when Pakistan tried to invade Kashmir. The best chance of India using nukes first is if and when China invades it like it did in 1962 when India was brutalized. I would put North Korea,Pakistan, Israel before India in that list.

Here are some links to substantiate my argument.
link1
link2

This article directly nullifies your ranking of India above Pakistan
link3

There are some very important points here. The above is something from the Russell-Einstein manifesto, and its essense: That weapons of mass destruction are available and in such a quantity it is not difficult to kill mankind, and even if those weapons are destroyed, the knowledge will always be there, and the weapons can be rebuilt within a short time if necessary.

Thus, for the survival of our species, there is no option but to make an end to all conditions were weapons of mass destruction may be deployed.

This is no less important today, because today, those weapons are so easily available.

Obviously, there are risks of openness, but a closed society will be unbearable, and most probably no more secure.

Real security can only be achieved by renouncing war.

People who want to hurt you can find a way to do it.

Oh yes. And that is why the only option is to make sure nobody wants to hurt you. From the Russell-Einstein Manifesto:

Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?

It's up to you.

Green bombs? No way: When you blow things up, you are causing destruction. It can't be environmentally friendly in any way. War is the most destructive thing you can do, also to the environment.

I was very much opposed to the bombing, and it is very clear that the bombing was flawed, but the DU panic is taking the focus away from the main point: That war is unacceptable as a political means. Or as the Russell-Einstein manifesto says "shall mankind renounce war?". I'm also a pacifist and a physicist.

You know, I'm not a conspiracy buff, but I couldn't help notice that the panic took off just after Amnesty published a very critical report and many other reports were made that there hasn't really been any improvement in the region. Before that, it was only a few conspiracy buffs and a well known swindler who favoured the idea.

If there was a conspiracy here, well, you've seen "Wag the dog", so imagine somebody getting upset about it, and decides to take attention away from the fact that the bombing was all flawed:

Senior-Man-in-Dark-suit: OK, Amnesty and several others are pointing out that we broke human rights, and that the campaign in Serbia was flawed. The President has asked us to take the attention away from that fact. Any ideas?

Junior-man-in-Dark-suit: Well, sir, there is this depleted uranium, that some conspiracy buffs have been talking about...

SMIDS: So, were we using it?

JMIDS: Of course, this stuff is really old.

SMIDS: So, what's the deal?

JMIDS: It's uranium, sir. People go nuts every time they hear about uranium.

SMIDS: Right. So, what are scientists saying about this?

JMIDS: They're all very clear, DU has hardly any effect.

SMIDS: Are you sure about that? You know, if we put out a panic about this, and it turns out to have been dangerous, we're in deep shit. You'll be out of a job, son!

JMIDS: I understand, sir, and yes, the scientific evidence is overwhelming.

SMIDS: Excellent. This is what we will do: First, we deny having used it...

JMIDS: ...but sir, they allready know we used it...

SMIDS: Son, you've got a lot to learn about Public Opinion Engineering! Listen now, this will work. First, we deny having used it, that should fuel the conspiracy buffs and get them some headlines in the mainstream press. We'll wait a month or two, then we admit it. That's that needs doing. Any questions?

Yep, this is the way it happened ;-). And it worked: It took the attention away from the fact that the military action was flawed, that NATO broke human rights principles as well (and should be prosecuted for it), and that the serbs would have thrown Milosevic out themselves if they had a tiny bit of support, they tried many times, and they eventually did.

"Green" Weapons is a lame attempt to make war look acceptable. But it isn't, it can't be. But, I fear, it will work... :-(