Slashdot Mirror
American Science: Addicted to Pentagon Cash?
An anonymous submitter writes: "In totalitarian states the military can compel scientists to perform research for weapons systems. That's not true in the United States, yet American scientists who refuse military work are exceedingly rare today. This may be in part because scientists, like most other citizens, agree that the U.S. is facing dangerous foes. But some dissidents argue the cause is more likely that Pentagon cash has become an addiction that scientists rationalize by working on 'dual use' technologies -- radar that maps planets and guides missiles; robots that peer through smoke in apartment fires to rescue victims, and through battlefield smoke to find human targets."
...if the scientists don't to develop technology with the Pentagon's Money for fear it will be used for destruction. If they develop the technology otherwise and the pentagon wants to use it for war they will anyway...and still take the credit. So why not take the cash and go with it?
Funny, many people ragged on Theo de Raadt when he said "I try to convince myself that our grant means a half of a cruise missile doesn't get built." Yes these scientists are being painted as super-duper people with minty-fresh breath because they seemingly have some of the same convictions.
Trolling is a art,
And let the government/God sort them out.
7680 MB Disk,192 GB Transfer,
I dare say that thr problem comes not with the development of dual-use technologies; the other use may very well be a well-merited one. The problem really comes with single-use military development by scientists who could have their hours devoted to tasks which have an even more beneficial effect.
But I thought we all loved DARPA cash?
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
we should worry about what's going on INSIDE the United States before worrying about what's going on OUTSIDE. What good does a new weapons system due if the problem comes from the inside, not some foreign country.
Here come the Johnny #5 posts....
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
..like all that cash thats been dumped into OSS by way of NSA linux, ReiserFS, etc, etc?
Those guys are all shameful murdering hypocrites too, lest we forget!
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Yeah ok, tax payers money, useless vapor ware technology, lobbying yadda yadda...
Still is it a bad thing that people are trying to develop technology even if the only purpose is war? TV, radio, even the internet were all initialy military projects. There is nothing "bad", "evil" or "immoral" about it. In the end it's technology and the military power that came with it which allows this country to exist as it does today. How you see that, good/bad is your own opionion.
In Soviet Russia, the television watches YOU!
You go where the money is, who makes money on OSS?
To use on the US!
Why would scientists have a different set of ethics than, say, workers in munitions factories?
That is a load of crap. My advisor (just for a start) will not take any DOD $, although NIH, NSF, DOE money is fair game. I would say that only half of the advisors in my department ever have accepted DOD $, the rest refusing.
It seems about the same with other departments/schools as far as I've spoken. The exception being $ coming indirectly (naval research lab and DOD paid for a trip to europe for me).
However, any worthwhile advisor would allow a student to pursue their own funds, and if I want to apply for a DOD fellowship, my advisor will support me completely.
But I think it is a bit foolish to say that most scientists are taking military money due to the perceived threat. If anything, their proposals are worded such to give the impression of being realted to homeland security while simply obfuscating within, the true research they want to do.
put fark in the subject if you want to email me
to email me: take my
I write software for the military. I have also written software for the commercial word, for Apple and for open source projects.
I don't perceive any moral high ground from staying away from the military, its technology and its science. If folks don't like things that go boom, then by all means, stay away.
But refusing to participate does not grant moral high ground, and in some cases perhaps the opposite.
Siggie
All the coolest technologies are bound to be developed by those who either have a need for them or have the cash for them.
Combine this with a film industry and televsion industry that makes off with uber-fantastic items, usually military related, and it does tend to have an effect.
Yes, there is lots of nastiness coming from this quarter, but a big portion of it does an ample job of preventing its own use. Nothing like making the scenario really really messy to deter others from abusing technology.
Lastly, its probably a little easier to come up with new ways to blow things up, move things fast, and put it where you want it than mucking around in the human genome. (plus everyone expects you to fuck something up when the primary purpose of the invention is to go BOOM)
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
US Military Expenditures In FY 2004, the US spends: $759,145 on the military every minute $45,548,724 on the military every hour $1,093,169,398 on the military every day For Fiscal Year (FY) 2004, the US military budget is $400.1 billion, which is equivalent to approximately 47% of 1999 global military expenditures.* $343.1 billion (2002 US dollars) is the average amount spent throughout the Cold War from 1946 to 1989. The US Congress has direct control over $784.5 billion discretionary spending for the Fiscal Year 2004. US military expenditures are 50.1% of this discretionary spending. The FY 2004 military budget is now more than six times larger than that of Russia, the second largest spender. The FY 2004 military budget is more than the combined spending of at least the next twenty-five nations. The FY 2001 military budget was twenty-four and a half times greater than the combined spending of Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Syria and Libya, countries which the US deems potential enemies or "states of concern" * 1999 is the latest available year of global military expenditure estimates. See the World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers (WMEAT) published by the U.S. State Department. Note: Figures include expenditures contained in the Pentagon budget and Department of Energy military programs.
New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year
Technology is always a two-edged sword, but developing new technology generally serves to advance us, regardless of the specific area it may happen to be in. If person A shoots person B, is person a not 100% responsible for his actions? Then how much responsibility is left over for the gun maker?
...and accept that people go to the US for
money, scientists work for the military
for money, people leave Cuba for money...
Ethics might be a good reason. It's difficult to rationalize taking blood money just because what you create might end up being used for bad purposes.
Well, it used to be difficult...now it's sharp business.
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
DARPA funds a wide range of scientific projects, not all of which are even directly military, much less meant for weapons systems. Many of the kinds of projects they fund are related to data storage, communications, etc, which are useful, in some cases even vital, to the military, but are not weapon-related at all, and definitely help more than just the military.
Don't forget, before the internet, there was ARPAnet.
Government: You will be making 300,000 dollars a year.
its a deal
They're working on technology that'll be used for the defense of their people, a very patriotic endeavour;
They're making much more money than they'd make doing less "sexy" research;
They get a security clearance, which is a very valuable thing these days;
And, the work is probably a whole lot less dry than plain-old "basic research".
Where's the downside?
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Everything's dual use. Box cutters that helped take down the planes two years ago were "dual use".
Bottom line, if you don't want to be funded by any agency, no one is breaking your arm to do it, or requiring you to stay where you are. That's your right. It's also someone elses right to be funded that way if they choose to be.
Why didn't airplanes have impermeable doors before 9-11?
Because it wasn't cost effective. Common sense and basic security took a back seat to the bottom line.
Until we are ruled by those who don't whore themselves out for the easy money of lobbyists and corporations, until the dollar takes a back seat to common sense, until we get off of our collective lard-asses, we have only ourselves to blame.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go watch reruns of Dukes of Hazzard.
true...but would you rather that you take the money to be used for constructive purposes as well as a military use, or the chance that it will soley be used for destructive development?
I would say that this is simply the result of looking at a particular piece of innovation in unexpected and creative way. While engineers would probably be content with designing a piece of machinery to perform only a set of functions *and nothing more*, someone else may step in and say, "I don't care what it was *designed* to do. I want to know just what it *can* do." In many ways this is turning "conventional" research and development on its head and turning it towards other purposes. True, some purposes are more dubious and nefarious than others, but much of the strength of this country was built on looking at things unconventionally.
I do not mean to evaluate the moral/philosophical implications here. I am merely pointing out that this is nothing more than an exhibition of one strength of a free society where innovation is encouraged.
If I had the skills to work on defense contracts, I would do it in a heartbeat. I don't understand why I shouldn't work to defend the country I love.
This is money that is spent on causes that are worthwhile. The government wastes lots of money on things that are just junk. However, defending our country from people who hate us and wish nothing less then taking away our liberties and even our lives is not one of those things.
-Brent
Payable in 107,356 easy monthly installments of $19.99 each. Get yours now!"
This sounds funny, but it is not a joke. I just graduated from a University with a strong physics program, and whenever anyone needed funding, the first thing they did was gather everyone up to brainstorm on how thier project could be turned into a weapon or defense against a weapon. Because once they had made that link, there was a far better chance of receiving government funding.
Sometimes they would even think of potential weapons of the future that their research might defend against.
There was no real intention of ever developing weapons. And some of the technologies were outright rediculous when you try to connect them to the military. But that doesn't stop the money from coming in.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
It's ironic that the usual opt-out clause for American universities who don't want to participate in morally bankrupt government research is that they wish to protect their academic staff's right to publish freely. (Which is intself an important concern, but still... they're shutting themselves out from multi-million dollar contracts on the basis of ethics, which should be applauded.)
Berkeley, for instance, maintains very strict standards about the kind of research it will and won't get involved in.
This professor was my computer graphics and computer vision teacher. He was given offers to work for the DOD and for military contractors, but turned them down, not because he didn't agree with them, but because if he took the job, his work would be classifed and he wouldn't be able to publish.
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
Well, since WWII US Military is by far the major sponsor of US science. Ever since the Manhattan project, big science is a branch of defense. Do you think business cared about particle physics, space tech, internet?
:)
Ever since the dawn of history the most exciting game for boys and men to play was war. Might as well get used to it
One of the attractions of government defense work is, it has well defined requirements. You get feedback too - you know if your project met its requirements.
For example, your project is to release a bomb from a plane. The bomb weighs w, the distance to the target is x,y, and z, it guides off a laser of frequency f, and is to hit within distance d of the target.
When you get done with the design, you build it and test it. If it does, indeed, hit the target within d, you done good (except you built a bomb).
This can be much less frustrating than building a word processor, say.
i've worked in various capacities for contractors of the dod (primarily darpa), for my entire technical life (> 15 years).
only because there is no other place to do interesting research and advanced development. there are plenty of positive things that can be done with my work, but no one else has the money to allow me to pursue it.
I think there's a fine line here which we should probably give at least some attention too. Is the scientist who's working under a DoD contract to develop a system to see through smoke really rationalizing his work by saying "Well, it won't ONLY be used to kill people."
Isn't it more likely that they're saying something more like "Yes, this technology will be used to increase the effectiveness of our military to kill other soldiers, but if i do a good job and it's useful, maybe it'll save more people than it helps kill."
I'd like to think at least some of them feel that way, and i wouldn't hold it against someone for taking the funding they can get to work on a technology with broad non-military use, in addition to the specific ideas the DoD has in mind. As the article says, there are vast areas of gray, in fact, it's mostly gray, so it comes down to people making ethical decisions on the specific details at hand. Sometimes that'll lead you to not develop a technology, if you sway towards non-militarism, and so, great, one less way to kill, but sometimes you'll develop something that kills sometimes, but saves in other contexts, or pushes our comprehension of basic science, the universe, etc.
Stupid dope-smoking hippies
It's a well known fact that many industries in the US are dependant on military spendings for survival. It's a way of subsidising economical growth that's always been favored by republican governments.
Scientists, as a subset of the american workforce are subject to the same realities that govern the american economy.
If the government decided to spend all that money (hundreds of billions each year) towards more noble causes such as renewable energy or solving humanity's problems, that dilemma wouldn't exist. Of course that's impossible due to the forces that be. Look at who actualy puts people in office and who owns the media (mass influence) and you'll see that it's the same people who get the money.
My 0.02 CAN$
--- Worst tagline ever.
Who do think started the fire in the first place?
87% of all arson fires in the United States are started by robots. 63% of all cattle mutilations. 6% of 7-11 robberies.
And deep down, you know they're just plotting to either overthrow us entirely or hook us up as batteries. No thanks, I'll pass. That's why I shoot Roombas on sight!
What an obvious post.
I am a young computer scientist. I refused military fundings for my master thesis and guess what...I got no fundings.
It is not addiction. What past dictatures could achieve through repression, brutal force or to sum up by political coercion is achieved today by economic coercion. Yes, capitalism is a form of totalitarism...And yes, america is living under a very subtile form of dictature.
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."
-- Albert Einstein (1875-1955),
You woulda thought the scientific community would have learned it's lesson after building that government-funded menace the DARPAnet. Which of course led to more flame wars than any technology to date.
Looks good for your age..
I had the honor of meeting with the head of the American Physics Society this year at a lunch. She was asked on these matters and said the organization has no stance, that these matters are best decided by the individual scientist. Uncle Sam and good old Darpa are a good source for funding, one that can be quite stable compared to other US departments, and is better boss than industry. The defense work can often be intangible, or one converted to civilan work. Like milnet and darpanet, Nuke power, IR goggles, and weather sats.
I'd say more, but my guild is raiding.
I was until recently paid out of a military grant. It bothered me, but basically over the course of two years I did maybe a month of work to that I wouldn't have done without the grant. The major impact of the money was that I directed them to my papers and may give them a paper that didn't pass peer review in the final report. It'll get published eventually anyway, either rewritten as two papers more likely to be sent to the right reviewers, or as a tech report should we give up on it.
For those asking why not take the money if you are going to do the work anyway, you still legitimize military spending by accepting the money and, in so doing, lending your name to them. But if you accept the money and then speak out about how you think basic research should be funded directly and not via the military budget, their giving money to you might lend you some legitimacy in the eyes of congress members too.
As the country's intellectual community, they should know better... since the creative energy and intelligence required for research and development obviously far surpass those for a monotonous assembly line job.
Although it can be argued that intellect and morality are completely unrelated and should be kept separate.
"I would rather the military run out of reasons to keep existing, and I don't want them to have any credit for something I have accomplished--which they clearly would if they gave me the money," says Steve Potter
It's amazing how people so clever in one field can exhibit appalingly naive and childish thought in other areas. I would rather scientists like Potter grow up and face the realities of the world outside their labs than have their silly views pandered to by an indulgent press.
"Surprise, surprise, it is different," he says. "Not different enough for me. Just think about the sheer magnitude of what hundreds of billions of dollars we spend on military efforts could do if spent on, for example, building schools in countries that need them, or creating diplomacy centers like the Carter Center, or informative research and practical solutions like those of the Union of Concerned Scientists."
Surprise, surprise, we do spend loads of money on countries that need schools and agricultural help and so on, but as anyone who has looked at the sad history of development aid in, say, Africa, knows, it is no use to build schools and whatnot if endemic violence destroys those schools and kills the people who would attend them. But like so many naive bien pensants, it's all 6 degrees of Dubya to him, and every evil that is is traceable back to the Pentagon.
I know this because Tyler knows this.
That's not true in the United States, yet American scientists who refuse military work are exceedingly rare today.
Look, there are all sorts of issues involved with performing military and defense research, particularly if it is classifed. I've had more than one resume come across my desk where the Ph.D. has a blank space for a couple of years or more on their CV. If you perform classified work, it tends to lock one into industry as these are periods where you often cannot publish in the peer reviewed journals.
God help you if you are interested in an academic career and say.....invest yourself in doing sleep research and find out how to induce sleep remotely via say trans-cranial stimulation. Stuff like this, particularly projects that apply to non-lethal weapon systems are hot right now.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Politicians don't build bombs, because they don't know how. Scientists with political agendas or, perhaps, no morals whatsoever buuild bombs for politicians.
Tell me, do you think Oppenheimer was a good person? How about Einstein, who famously urged the wartime administration to build a bomb lest the nazis get there first (and note that the bomb wasn't used on Germany)?
On the other hand, governmental development of destructive technology has been a strategic necessity since the age of the seige engine.
Example: if DUHbya continues his ill-advised moratorium on stem-cell research while your boogeyman of choice (China, maybe?) continues such programs, they will smoke Americans in the new bioconomy, or worse, develop weapons which we have zero hope of matching because the knowledge isn't there.
Anyone want a world where mandarins live a thousand years? Millineatocracy?
What's really "exceedingly rare" is a technology that has absolutely zero military application.
It's all about the money.
I'm guessing you only have to show an interest and Darpa will give you a good job on some tropical island somewhere, your needs attended by hot island ladies.
At least, that's what the guy told me when we set up our meeting in the middle of a cornfield. hmmmm....
Make Robots Not War
by Erik Baard
September 10 - 16, 2003
As American warfare has shifted from draftees to drones, science and the military in the United States have become inseparable. But some scientists are refusing to let their robots grow up to be killers.
Clusters of scientists shut the laboratory door on the military half a century ago in reaction to the horrors of atomic bombs, and again decades later in disgust with the Vietnam War. But today such refuseniks are rare and scattered--in large part, they say, because so many of their colleagues doing basic research are addicted to military money.
"I would rather the military run out of reasons to keep existing, and I don't want them to have any credit for something I have accomplished--which they clearly would if they gave me the money," says Steve Potter, a neuroscience researcher in Atlanta whose astonishing robotic creations would make a 21st-century general drool--if the general could get his hands on them.
Imagine a swarm of robots seizing control of the airspace and waters of a besieged port city while amphibious automatons roll up the shoreline to knock out pockets of resistance. The attack is brilliantly coordinated, and each of the robots is an astonishingly effective killer because it learns faster and has more flexible responses than any mere machine. The secret? At its core are real animal neurons--living brain cells--wired into advanced circuitry.
Potter's team at the Laboratory for Neuroengineering, shared by Emory University and Georgia Tech, might be best able to deliver on that wild vision. He's already created the Hybrot, a machine controlled by rat neurons sealed in a patented dish spiked with micro-electrodes. You can actually see those cells growing more complex and hairy with dendrites as they learn and interact with the outside world. The work could spawn an entirely new class of adaptable robot combatants. But there's a hitch: Potter won't take a penny from the military. Sure, the Department of Defense might crib from his published research, but Potter wants to grasp new knowledge without bloody hands.
Technological dominance already equates to short-term military victory, and in coming years advanced technologies could also more tightly secure occupations against guerrilla warfare and terrorism like what we see in Iraq today. Or at least top brass and congressional leaders alike are betting heavily on that belief.
On August 19, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reported that the U.S. House of Representatives '04 budget would pump $126 billion into federal research, $8.4 billion over '03--90 percent of that increase is specifically earmarked for the Defense and Homeland Security departments. Moreover, with that many dollars chasing (and tempting) researchers in fields like robotics and nanotechnology, the perception is that it's almost impossible to forgo military support and still remain competitive.
"I think because there's so much military funding in robotics, compared to other kinds of computer science or arts and sciences, that you're going to have a reaction. You're going to have people take this attitude," says Illah Nourbakhsh, a well-known roboticist at Carnegie Mellon University who also snubs military financing. "But there are so many more people in robotics who do take the money."
The push comes from George W. Bush himself. "We must build forces that draw upon revolutionary advances in the technology of war," he told navy graduates.
Some of the most visible fruits of this emphasis are forecast in a Pentagon planning paper, "Joint Vision 2020." One third of U.S. combat aircraft will be unmanned by that year, the report predicts. Ground and sea forces will also rely heavily on robots. Earlier this year the navy and marines held their biannual Kernel Blitz exercise off the California coast, deploying robotic submarines paid for by the Office of Naval Research (O
"That board with the nail in it may have defeated us, but the humans won't stop there. They'll make bigger boards and bigger nails. Soon they will make a board with a nail so big it will destroy them all!"
.sig.
- Kang & Kodos
Hey, that gives me an idea for a grant proposal...then again, so does my
People have to remember: Anything swung in the right way/fast enough can be used as a weapon.
Military inventions have grown out of things used for everyday use, and vice versa. Its just life
Anyone who has ever worked in a major university information sciences research department will tell you that as a matter of fact. One of the bigger water cooler buzzes a few years ago was what to do with the general dwindling of funding from DoD and NSF. Needless to say, that problem solved itself.
No vast conspiracy here. Everyone is completely aware of it.
Hammers that pound in nails, AND crush skulls of puppies.
People are building tools. Weapons can be tools for deterrance, or they can be weapons of agression.
Whose fault is it if some psychotic leader gets his or her slimy hands on the football? Not the scientist. The voters are at fault for listening to the lying pandering sociopath. And the psycho is guilty of whatever mass murder he commits.
If you take away the weapons of mass destruction, he'll just use old fashioned methods of killing, like tarrifs, or interdiction, or cutting funding. Ban those?
The cure for bad leadership decisions, is to get rid of bad leaders. That's done by VOTING. In this country, anyway.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
In the modern era everyone thought that science and technology would be the savior of humankind, leading us to a bright future of world peace and prosperity.
2 World Wars and an atomic bomb shattered that notion, proving that the technologies we had placed so much hope in could be twisted into the machines of our own destruction.
All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
I assume most people will disagree with it, but ... well done whoever posted it.
A question which comes to mind after reading this is:
Why is it illegal for North Korea or Iraq to supposedly have a nuclear / chemical weapons program, when US-Israel have the most enthusiastic nuclear & chemical weapons programs on Earth with full, offical government funding, and no-one bats an eyelid?
I know the answer that the right-wing will produce: that the US-Israel program is for defense only - to protect the innocents of the world, whereas the Iraqi / North Korean programs are clearly for TERRORISM and must be halted at all costs. There are some problems with their arguments, including:
1) Iraq didn't actually have any of the weapons they were accused of having
2) The people most likely to use their WOMD for terrorism are the US-Israeli people. Considering they have the largest stockpiles of WOMD on Earth, all other countries would be foolish to challenge them. Therefore the argument that the stockpiles are for defense seems to be quite a stretch of the truth, especially in light of recent history ( and not-so-recent history in Israel's case ).
I don't really see what the problem is... if a scientist has a problem with doing research that will help the U.S. wage war, they can simply not accept funding from the Pentagon. If no other agency will fund them, then probably (a) their research sucks or (b) their research has few non-military applications.
So most scientists don't receive military money... as the summary points out, this doesn't necessarily mean they're compromising their principles. Certainly many scientists support strengthening U.S. military capabilities (I'm one of them).
The article seems to take a fairly cynical viewpoint that scientists are whoring themselves out to the Pentagon, and that helping the DoD is morally wrong. But the fact is that the military funds tons of research that will benefit civilians, in everything from artificial intelligence to more efficient car engines.
My bicyles
Also, if someone can help remind me, there's a show called "Tactical to Practical"... Discovery channel, maybe? (shrug)
-=-This sig brought to you by The Cheat; and by Viewers Like You.-=-
go back to defending ourselves with our bare hands. That then would allow us to engage in 'fair' and 'ethical' fights. So then, when China decides to ship 10 million or so soldiers over to the good old recently enlightened and de-armed US to assist us in our re-education, we can all feel very pious indeed, in knowing we fought 'fairly'. No point in ensuring that we have control over our way of life, as imperfect as it may be. Everyone has good intentions, right? No one would wish us ill were we pacifists, would they? We can reason with everyone, the pen is mightier than the sword. No one would deny my slashdot access ... would they?
damn. my girlfriend, er ex-girlfriend, who just left me yesterday has the online handle AmerikanScience. i didn't really need to see that title sitting on the top when i came here.
oh well. Jose will be sure to blot this from my mind.
especial!
of course the kicker will be when i find out that she too was addicted to pentagon cash. oh the lies.
That was supposed to have Cartman quotes around it...
Scientists and Engineers build tools. How you use them is up to you.
Don't blame us for building a mega death ray just because your government happens to want to use it for terror, it could just as easily be used for keeping the peace instead.
Beep beep.
You could always try to achieve the pipe dream of making wars unnessecary.
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
He warned us about the military-industrial complex. Sheesh, we Americans sure do love war, don't we? As long as we're kicking some piddly country's butt, we're so happy.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Earlier /. story about Hybrot
Homepage of the Laboratory for Neuroengineering at Georgia Tech
News release about Hybrot.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Just because somebody may be more "intelligent" (whatever that means, as if "intelligence" were something that could bea measured) that doesn't mean they are any more moral.
Often, they can be less moral since they have the ability to rationalize anything they have already made their heart up on. They may be book smart, but they are not wise enough to realize they are not making a rational decision, but rationalize a decision they already made.
All the intelligencia can suck my dick. I'd rather live in the Heartland or America where values still mean something.
What we see here is the addiction to a funding agency (the military)...this is typical of societies that have developed large militaries...before, it was the Britan (before WWI) that was the biggest military, now, due to history, it's the US's turn...in the distant future, it's going to be China's turn. The trouble with this situation, is that, sure, you now have this giant funding machine, (given a given superpower (this case, the US), the funding machine in question (military), is the biggest in this given country, it drains all the funding resources into itself (like a black hole), it therefore pervades all thinking as it is the biggest and therefore, the correct way of thinking and funding all new technologies..this is dangerous in the long run because it promotes a military view of the world: all funding goes through the military/ industrial complex, it is the only source of decent funding for future hi-tech, most important, big militaries determin your politics (IE: Goerge Bush-lets invade everybody thinking to sove all problems). The trouble with this, is many, first all other countries do the same (arms race to oblivion), because wepons get bigger and scarier (real bakc holes, super AI, genetics gone wild), it drains funding for real science and commercial developemnt.. this is the most important, as countries that develop normal science and commercial technology will win in the long run as most lasting and productive science and products manufacturing come form the commercial sector (whitness the current and future growth of far east manufacturing).. it has been pointed out before by historians that big military states fail because, they can't compeat commercially, the big military ssytems don't make money, they burn up money, cost money to maintain and, most important, they produce generations of scientists, engineers that can't develope/manufature good comercial items on-time and under budget because they came form this very inefficient military/industrial culture, it happened after the last big military/industrial spending spree in the 80's, it looks like it is starting over again in a new cycle.
I don't think you could go near the money at all. As soon as you touch it you would end up assisting in it's creation. Say it was something you were truly interested in working on - then you have the option of a) trying to find private non-military/DOD funding. or b) doing it yourself. Either of those may be unfeasable depending on the gizmo. But if you do get it created than you are set. It may always be possible that the DOD/military will come along later and swipe it. But at least you can damn them for it and be free of any guilt. This would of course depend again on the gizmo and or the creators political views. Scientists tend to work on things that interest them and so I'm sure there are tons out there that have no problems working on military projects. As far as I'm concerned though - I'd try to stick with the stuff that moves civilization along and not backwards.
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
The other side of the coin is that a patriotic scientist would work for the government to ensure that their country was the one with the advanced weapons...
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
the big problem I see is that the DOD and NASA etc. always take the political credit when someone they are paying thinks up something good. This creates the perception that only the "Government" can do science. When really all the government is doing is shuffling around vaste amounts of capital. Individuals are the ones making discoveries and they should receive the credit. Otherwise all you have is a bunch of souless institutions taking all the credit and denying any responsibility. People are what matter. We don't need a return to hero worshipping that applies to characters like Einstein, but neither would people be so dumb as to give the patent office credit for Einstein's work or for Tesla's many benefactors and investors for his discovery and invention.
All I as is that when news reporters report on some new NASA discovery or DOD gee whiz technology, that they give credit to the people that did it and not so much the organization that funded it.
The History Channel is running a new series,
Tactical to Practical, which shows military to civilian crossover applications of equipment.
Do you know the reason the Amish use hook and eye fasteners rather than buttons on their coats? Buttons were originally designed for military uniforms. There are countless examples of military research crossing over to civilian life, including the obvious, The Internet.
Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
They'd like you to think that they're owned by you. That they're serving you. So you let down your guard. You let Rosie the Robot start raising your kids. You leave Robot alone with Dr. Smith and Will Robinson for long, unsupervised jaunts away from the Jupiter II. You install a little doggie door for your Aibo.
A month later, you wake up to find your bank account cleared out, your kids are covered in Borg technology and your spouse is pregnant with a Demon Seed. We've all seen it before.
Finally, robots controlled by Giant Squid tend to only mutilate Sea Cows. Extra-terrestrial robots do, however, do lots of regular cattle mutilations.
Hello there, I call bullshit. Thanks ;)
that battlefield medicine of the last two centuries has lead to great advances in first responder, emergency room treatment, and reconstructive surgery. What would our medical care be like without these traumatic events to push medicine along?
SCO to Hell
They also do a dandy job of slicing onions.
I never have, and never will, work on weapons systems, nor will I ever overtly teach others to how to do so.
However, if the tracking systems I'm working on now for sporting events, or the electronic controls I'm working on for civilian marine use ever get turned to military purposes, or someone I've tutored in calculus uses that knowledge for ends I wouldn't myself, what do you expect me to do?
Cruch onions with a rock?
Well guess what Sparky, that's a military technology too.
There's no such thing as a strictly peacetime tool so long as people themselves aren't peacable.
KFG
Potter's team at the Laboratory for Neuroengineering... created the Hybrot, a machine controlled by rat neurons sealed in a patented dish spiked with micro-electrodes... The work could spawn an entirely new class of adaptable robot combatants. But there's a hitch: Potter won't take a penny from the military. Sure, the Department of Defense might crib from his published research, but Potter wants to grasp new knowledge without bloody hands.
Well, isn't that sweet?
Folks, the DOD is going to get this research sooner or later. If they pay for it, they get access to it first, and that's an advantage they are willing to pay for, but either way they'll get the technology sooner or later, regardless.
So would his hands truly be bloody? Or does he rest easier by fooling himself into believing that, if he just pretends he's not part of the problem, no one will blame him?
If he does the research using DARPA funds, but doesn't directly create a weapon, is he still a bad man? I would argue that he's not, that he is realistically taking advantage of a resource knowing full well that that non-warm-and-fuzzy, Big-Bird-less reality is that the DOD will serve its purpose, whether or not he delays them until he publishes.
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
Damn, that's some good money.
The US is not at all facing dangerous foes. It is the safest, most comfortable country in the world bar none. Since 9/11 the US has killed countless innocent people all over the middle east, way more than perished in the WTC attack, which was a embarrassing lapse in aviation security nothing more (such a thing would never happen in a country such as the UK or Israel, for example.)
And in revenge for the idiot George Bush's rampage of terror, not one American has been killed or even hurt on US soil by a so-called terrorist. The terrorists aren't even as dangerous as the bloods and the crips. There is only one terrorist country left on earth: we live in it.
The 1994 genocide in Rwanda required only one invention: the machete. Preventing the genocide would have required very quick deployment of enough troops to put the whole country under occupation, something no military had at the time or has now. (Special forces troops can't occupy a whole country, and the rest of (e.g.) the American miltiary is a slow behemoth.) Maybe more miltary tech will enable timely action in the future. Or not. Only one way to find out. So, I would not have any compunctions against working on military tech. (Got that, Rumsfeld? Call me up, man, I'll send you a resume.)
One of my closest collegues went into work with the pentagon, working on making a more accurate radar system on helicopters.
Technology such as this would save lives, not destroy them. Im a cruz missile with a perfect radar is fired, there is 0% chance of it hitting a neighboring hospital. If a cruz missile with an ok radar is fired, there is a 30% chance of it hitting a neighboring hospital. I know people like to get all "Ooh, war = bad. weapons = bad." But, believe it or not, we already have enough power to destroy the world. Most of the technology nowadays is based around NOT DESTROYING sorrounding targets: e.g., making a missile to destroy only a certain area and not the residential areas around it.
the byproduct of years of oppression by the white man
scientists who refuse military work are exceedingly rare...may be in part because...the U.S. is facing dangerous foes
Or maybe because if you just completed a PhD in nuclear physics, you aren't going to apply those skills working in the research department of Toys R Us.
Do you pay taxes?
make world, not war
President Eisenhower warned us of the problems with the military industrial complex that had been created in response to the Cold War.
The "War on Terrorism" has simply become the new justification for spending.
Not that there aren't genuine security needs for the U.S. government. It's just that an accurate picture of those needs is clouded by misinformation from those who stand to gain.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
The way to make war unnecessary is to fight the war to defeat all enemies. No enemies, no war. It's that simple
funny in CS research at univeristies ..many have the same problme with Microsoft cash...
Don't Tread on OpenSource
I wonder how many people want to do research on something non-military related, find that the easiest money is military-related, and then claim some kind of bogus "dual use" application just to get the .mil money?
I am not a scientist I'm an I.T. Contractor and more than once I have refused to work in defense plants. Yes, it has meant that once in a while the gap between contracts has been a little longer but I still manage to sleep at nights.
I will not work on products that are used to kill people. Period.
Ed Almos
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus, 56-120 A.D.
By most methods of moral judgement, morality can only be defined by a choice of will. Science, technology, or objects do not have a moral nature. By themselves they are not moraly good or evil.
It's easy to say that a device that can"peer through battlefield smoke to find human targets" is evil, but if you or someone you care about is being shot at by those "human targets" you may see it diferently.
XML is the best data format; unless your data needs to be read or written by a human or a computer.
Iraq didn't actually have any of the weapons they were accused of having
They trucked it all across Syria before the start of the war and it's stashed in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley right now because Sadaam paid millions to hide it for him. Dubya is waiting until his re-election campaign is needing the media boost and then the massive WMD cache will be exposed to the world so he can say "I told you so" which will skyrocket his public ratings and virtually guarantee him a re-election victory.
If we determine that our scientists are addicted to government spending (meaning most reliable way to get large amounts of it), that may be a symptom that federal taxes are too high (i.e. if the people are to spend money on research, the most efficient route likely avoids the government middle-man).
This problem has reared its head elsewhere, like the denial of federal highway funds unless states changed their speed-limits (U.S. example). Funneling the majority of government spending through the federal government (as opposed to through state or local governments) undermines the economic balance present in a federal republic of states as envisioned by the U.S. founders.
The reason money is *spent* is to get something out of it. DARPA isn't just saying "Here's a big chunk of cash...please make something cool with it". They develop ideas and plans and research tracks.
Now, on top of that, DoE already spends a *SHEDLOAD* of money on pure theoretical science. I believe the particle accelerator in Batavia, IL run by FNAL costs in aggregate some $6,000.00 odd dollars a minute to operate.
Those $450 million planes, by the way, have lead to great strides forward in material science, and may one day lead to the proper materials to build a space elevator.
This, as opposed to bottom-up economics, which would have this nation buried in cigarette butts and McDonalds hamburger wrappers.
I have attended several seminars (chemistry) where military money accounted for some of the funding. In particular a gentleman from the Colorado School of Mines was doing research on a methanol reformer/fuel cell. He alluded to the fact that it was only need for a one way trip. Apparently it was part of some missile technology.
I totally agree that the dual use argument is lingering just under the surface. Typically the researchers thank those that funded the research at the conclusion of the seminar, but it's never a really big deal. The importance of funding for scientific research is extremely important however it is achieved. You have to wonder if this leads to a more militant society though.
How about that, the Shadows were right and the Vorlons were wrong!
--
Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.
Clearly, the most ethical thing to do is to get as much DOD grant money as you can and then produce nothing useful with it.
What the fuck is a dissadent in a free society?
Why would scientists have a different set of ethics than, say, workers in munitions factories?
Many scientists are unique in what they are able and driven to create. If you are in a small group of people with the ability to visualize and bring something into the world, you have a responsibility to contemplate what that could mean, and who should receive it.
Let's say you're the only person in the world who has thought of how to construct a dematerializing ray which can turn a tank into vapor, and can be built from standard components. What if you figure no one else will think of the same idea for hundreds of years, then do you make it? And if you make it, what do you do with it? Post the instructions on Slashdot?
These are difficult questions to grope with, and the ethical complexities run deep. The scientists who worked to develop the nuclear bomb were affected by it for much of their lives. The world was also greatly affected by the results of their work.
What do you do if you're a scientist in Germany in 1934, after the book burning and antisemitism began but before the war began, and your government asks you to help build a nuclear bomb, which you and only a few others in the world are able to do. Do you help?
If you can make such a decision lightly, then I hope you're never one of those people able to build such a device. Those decisions can change the course of human events.
Cash spurs innovation. So what? Scientists make "dual-use" technologies to get the cash from the Pentagon. So what?
I hate to burst your bubble, but that's the capitalistic way, which just happens to be the American way. All of the great achievements of this country have been driven by capitalism. To put it another way, all of the great achievements of this company have been driven by greed.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Me Og invent use for rock as chair and no one else may use this idea without paying me 1 unit of food.
Me og invent other use for rock as deadly weapon all clan chiefs free to use this idea, but must provide 2 weeks use of their daughter.
Since the Navy basically invented the practice of public funding for basic scientific research, it's a tad hypocritical of scientists (disclaimer: I am one) or anyone else to blindly reject DOD bling. Much significant environmental and technological research has been done under the aegis of DOD grants. You can argue that defense research has done more for peaceful causes... etc.
But, that is history. The problems now are manifold, but there are some specific ones that bug me. First of all, much of the Federal money that goes into science is earmarked for pet programs or facilities of important members of congress or senators. These tend to be boondoggles in the sense of being inefficient, and are often not subjected to the same rigorous peer review that an independently-originated proposal may have. You can include anything that can be classified as "Star Wars" research and just about anything named after a senator in this category.
Second, the highest levels of the agencies and the Congress and the administration are pushing science in directions that are not wanted either by the public or by scientists themselves. Same sort of boondoggle. Ask someone on the street what they think scientists should be doing in the national interest (you might be surprised at the thoughtfulness of their answers btw). Then look at where Federal science money actually goes. Yep. Not there. Ask scientists what important research they think should be done. Same deal. I'd provide specifics but this post is long enough.
In a real sense the Federal government is out of control with regard to the use of the public's money for scientific research. Which is a shame, because the possibilities are tremendous. Despite the problems, the US still has a fantastic system set up for doing science. But it's underfunded and underappreciated.
I am quite civilized, and I should be brought a beer immediately. -- Bruce Sterling
"Weapons are bad" is a simplistic, anti-intellectual, irresponsible aphorism.
Scientists need to think about these things
a lot more carefully than that.
By the way, my work was in computer architecture, which like any generally useful thing was good for the military but also good for everyone else.
Josh
Does everything have to have sinister underpinnings to geekdom? Occam's Razor used to be a such favorite in the old days.
--- Ban humanity.
I feel the same way. I've turned down work in hammer factories, at the Louisville Slugger company, chainsaw companies, many a silverware manufacturer (what with the knives and all). And you'll never find me working for Ford or GM. No siree... No "products that are used to kill people" on my resume.
... welcome our new scientists addicted to Pentagon cash overlords.
All hail to the HypnoToad!
This whole thread seems to express a kind of "if we had no weapons there would be world peace" mentality.
Think about this for a moment. If we eliminated weapons research could we expect other countries to do the same, and if not, for them to leave us alone? I don't think so.
If we greatly reduced weapons research such that it was only performed in time of war, could we assume this would be adequate protection against those we are fighting? I don't think so.
I'm sure there are a million reasons why scientists work on weapons systems, but I don't think many of them have this crisis of conscience as presented.
If we had been slower in development of nuclear weapons, or long range bombers, or other such instruments during and shortly after the great wars, would we (USA/EU) still be here to contemplate the evil of military technology? Who is to say some facist regime without scruples would not have walked all over democracies far and wide two decades ago?
I detest weapons and instruments of death, but I also accept the fact that the world is a harsh mistress; far too often people and nations find themselves in a kill or be killed situation.
I'm not going to work on weapons systems, but I am glad that some very smart people are working on them, and employing the technology to protect my country.
This has nothing to do with being addicted to the Pentagon's money.
Have you ever talked with profs and grad students? I steered away from grad school after seeing the desparation that sets in when grant money is needed or else they're done for. My wife, in the genetics field, left grad school for the same reason. After a while, you feel like beggars, holding out your hand for grants that are far and few between.
If the Pentagon is going around handing out hundred dollar bills to the beggars, can you really blame the beggars for accepting?
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
Is that so wrong?
"If you don't like their politics, kill them."
That is the least sophisticated way of relating to other people. No money for fixing things, or making things better in advance, and billions for violence.
For all those in the U.S. who wanted a war: Was killing Arabs as satisfying as you thought it would be? Are you happy with the cost? Is $1,000 per second and $4 billion per month okay with you? Did you have no other plans for the money that comes out of your pocket?
The U.S. has a long history of aggression in the Middle East. But when Arabs also decide that aggression is a way to solve problems, is that totally different? Should Arabs be happy to be killed by such superior people as Americans? Should they be grateful that the Americans, who believe they know what is right for the world, are forcing them to learn American political convictions?
Why is there always the assumption that all scientists are good? I mean, there's Dr. Evil, Dr. Strangelove and even scientology. All of them looking to create weapons of terrible power. Is it any suprise then that there is a lack of scientists that don't want to create new weapons?
He said big fat titties, not pudgy turtle necked penises you fag!
Much like artists, for centuries scientists have been tied to their benefactors, be it the Government, the church, an institution or just wealthy individuals. To pursue science takes a special individual, and often that person needs money to do his/her research but making money takes away from his/her research. This is the quandry that has faced almost every serious scientist for the last 100 years and why many scientists teach.
It doesn't really matter where the money comes from, as long as the science that is done isn't tainted. Far to often science has been and continues to be tainted by the granting process. You can't study certain "drugs" unless you are looking for problems they cause, can't study benefiets. You are far more likely to get grant money if the problem you are studying creates headlines. "Global warming threatens planet" will get money "Don't panic, this appears normal" will not. The more alarmist the claim it seems, the more likely a grant will be gotten to study.
I say it is the morals and quality of the individual doing the research, and not where the money comes from. For example, Einstein wouldn't help develop an atomic bomb. In the end, any one offering money for science can try to exert undue influence. The quality of the people involved determines if that attempted influence has any effect.
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Ssshhhh, Us DOD people have been doing that all along...
What, u think it takes a year to right an outline for a project? lol.
Thank you.
A lot of research I've seem being done in computer science today can be easily applied to the military. For example, while we all rejoice when a new breakthrough enables us to do ad hoc wireless networking, the same thing can be used by the military. This summer, I helped on a localization for wireless sensor networks project. Surprisingly, I was told that one of the algorithms (a graph rigidity algorithm) can also enable pilotless drones to fly in formation, thus saving fuel. At the same time, success in the project would advance sensor network routing, etc. which can help farmers monitor their farms. Who would have thought that computational geometry can be so dangerous!
The interdisciplinary nature of academia makes it useful to the military. While researchers might have one application in mind when they develop something, another researcher (possibly funded by the DoD) might see another application for it. I hate to be so fatalistic but that's the inevitable consequence of knowing more. The same knowledge can be used for good and harm. Ultimately, it is the policy makers and leaders who must decide how we should apply our wealth of knowledge.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
The majority of research projects I've seen for the police or military in recent years have been geared towards finding non-lethal ways to stop attackers, or ways to repel various types of weapons.
It's relatively easy to stop an attacker with a big enough gun - but it's not nearly as easy to temporarily stun/paralyze someone with no permanent side-effects.
Much of the technology we still use for these purposes today was developed during World War I. (Typically, things like tear gas.) The "stun guns" often sold for self-protection aren't very reliable. (If it shoots a pair of needles at the person, those needles have to hit their skin somehow, or at least something electrically conductive. Thick clothing can render them completely useless.)
ahh what write is right?
Does might involve mites?
What I meant was write, not right or written.
Sheesh, I guess Im smitten.
You know how sometimes you read something and your heart starts racing and your tail starts wagging because you know *exactly* what the writer is talking about? This is it!
So, what about us poor grad students? I went to 3 prospective advisers at the beginning of last year: one's doing augmented reality, the other one bioinfo, the last ODEs. All of them had defense or army funding, and I had a problem with that. So I brought up as nicely as I could the fact that I objected to doing research that was being funded by military institutions.
The first one suggested that I figure out my priorities early on in my academic career and I would always be a loser if I chose not to take the money where I could get it. The second said it would be better if peace-loving folk like "us" took the money and did something with it that had peaceful applications. The third ignored me.
Frankly, I'm not satisfied with any of those attitudes. I suppose I could rant on and on about why, but the point is, grad students have to live with this climate and we don't always like it. Maybe that's even when the problem starts... You don't have a choice at the beginning of your career, when you're actually thinking intensely about this stuff, and maybe you get stuck feeling like you have no choice later, when you really do, and when you could be giving your underlings a choice too.
Sorry, this became a rant...
"We live as we dream, alone." -- J. Conrad
DANTE: My friend is trying to convince me that any contractors working on the uncompleted Death Star were innocent victims when the space station was destroyed by the rebels.
BLUE-COLLAR MAN: Well, I'm a contractor myself. I'm a roofer... (digs into pocket and produces business card) Dunn and Reddy Home Improvements. And speaking as a roofer, I can say that a roofer's personal politics come heavily into play when choosing jobs.
RANDAL: Like when?
BLUE-COLLAR MAN: Three months ago I was offered a job up in the hills. A beautiful house with tons of property. It was a simple reshingling job, but I was told that if it was finished within a day, my price would be doubled. Then I realized whose house it was.
DANTE: Whose house was it?
BLUE-COLLAR MAN: Dominick Bambino's.
RANDAL: "Babyface" Bambino? The gangster?
BLUE-COLLAR MAN: The same. The money was right, but the risk was too big. I knew who he was, and based on that, I passed the job on to a friend of mine.
DANTE: Based on personal politics.
BLUE-COLLAR MAN: Right. And that week, the Foresci family put a hit on Babyface's house. My friend was shot and killed. He wasn't even finished shingling.
RANDAL: No way!
BLUE-COLLAR MAN: (paying for coffee) I'm alive because I knew there were risks involved taking on that particular client. My friend wasn't so lucky. (pauses to reflect) You know, any contractor willing to work on that Death Star knew the risks. If they were killed, it was their own fault. A roofer listens to this... (taps his heart) not his wallet.
Dual use is a concept that I've used to justify working on genetically modifying soy beans to contain a hormone that when consumed over a period of time, can reduce the rate of population growth in countries seeded with the strain. I'm dubious about the practicality of military uses of this technology and am unclear as to why it's being funded, but it certainly seems to have great potential to solve a number of serious environmental and human overcrowding problems, so I have no problem pushing it forward.
Excellent job erecting and tearing down a strawman.
No one is saying that we should have no defense. However, it is reasonable to say that a military budget larger than that of the rest of the world is ridiculous. Moreover, to be increasing it whilst necessary social programs are being cut is utterly absurd.
A frightened mob is a dangerous thing, vote sensibly.
Now if only we could get funding for research into accountability, responsibility, and integrity in government and political organizations.
Sadly, I doubt that would get funded. The biggest concern I have today is not weapons, but the decision makers insulated from the deceitful and irresponsible use of these weapons.
Bush and Co. have coerced the US into a war against Iraq and terrorism in general under false pretense, for political and monetary gain, without any repercussion.
The US is about to spend a record $87 billion, on top of $80 billion already approved for the Iraq war. Add into that the $20 billion spent on Afgh. and you have a nice $187 BILLION DOLLAR price tag.
The size of that figure is just disturbing, esp. considered in light of the current job-loss recovery, the sad state of education and health care, and other pressing domestic needs.
First, I'd like to note that my group's funding, so far as I know, doesn't involve anything from the DOD. I don't know about any of the other groups at my institute (JILA - see jilawww.colorado.edu), because it basically doesn't matter -- people write their *own* grant applications, after all, including choosing where to apply for them. If you read the article and disregard the rhetoric about "polluted" money, you'll find that it says basically this -- people do neat stuff, and the Pentagon offers to give them money.
I think this process is at least as much a beaurocratic effect as anything else -- the Pentagon has a big budget for research, but there's only so much research you can really do that has direct military applications, so they protect the budget by funding a lot of stuff that might not be militarily important in any obvious way but is pretty neat and could pay off in the long run (again, this is pretty much exactly what the director of DARPA said in the article). The effect is a lot of stuff getting funded that has immediate, concrete civilian benefits (example -- the IR map of the Milky Way, funded by SDI) but military benefits which are less immediate, less concrete, and further off (they never actually built SDI, so the military payoff is a little nebulous, but the papers still got published).
To give an example without the emotional baggage of military funding, consider that I worked last summer on a NASA grant. The area I worked on consisted of field theory applied to ultracold quantum gases. Now, to be perfectly honest, I have no idea how ultracold quantum gases might prove useful to NASA. Going one step further, I have no idea whether there's anything ultracold gases might be useful to which might be useful to NASA. Now, if you were a Village Voice reporter describing my summer, would you say that I was in the gray area of the space-industrial complex, or would you conclude that NASA chose to fund something that didn't directly relate to space, but which is interesting nonetheless?
Call me old fashioned but I still believe the US is a moraly driven country. You might not agree with some of the tactics it uses but it's goals are just. History has turned out pretty much always on it's side since it's been a world power.
Besides, the US military is going to win any war it gets into at this point and I see nothing that's going to change that fact in the future. Why not work for them? The technology that you develop is going to end up saving lives. The wars themselves are going to be shorter, less troops on both sides are going to die, and certainly less civilians will get killed in the process. Eventually that same technology works itself into the civilian world too, usually with great benifit.
This isn't about defense contracts... this is about developing technology that will be used to kill people.
Fundamentally, would you take money to develop something that may one day kill your cousin? That's the moral dilemma, in an extreme and absurd nutshell, that the researchers have to struggle with.
It's not about nationalism (us vs them) or patriotism (we're great rah-rah), it's about humanism (people are people).
Imagine you are doing research in neurobiology, understanding how the brain works... on one hand useful for the development of drugs to treat disorders and diseases, to regenerate severed spinal columns, and heal quadrapalegics. On the flip side, you also know it is being used to develop more effective efficient neurotoxins, sleep agents, drugs to confuse or cripple soldiers, and civilians.
Then you also realize that eventually these same weapons will be used against *your* family, as soon as someone figures out how to reverse engineer the compound, or at least how to replicate a grossly inefficient knockoff.
Nothing to do with liberty, freedom, peace, or defense. Just moral distaste and disagreement coupled with a little foresight and understanding.
GPL Deconstructed
One of the big military "holy grails" right now is biological sensors (part of my work). DARPA wants a sensor which can detect a wide range of biological and chemical weapons. Why in the world would developing such a device be seen as bad? Not only would it protect civilians and the military, it would keep us honest as well. It could provide evidence to our enemies should we use such things.
The sheer hypocricy of this guy, who is doing research of questionable ethics, to accuse people like me of being immoral is astounding. He's the worst sort of ivory tower scientest, one who refuses to see any flaws in his person, but easily points out the flaws in everyone else.
That's right. Since 1948 Costa Rica has had no military. That was 55 years ago, and Costa Rica has not been invaded.
"...that the U.S. is facing dangerous foes."
Maybe the U.S. wouldn't be facing dangerous foes if it stopped BRANDING foreign countries as foes... meanwhile, if the U.S. military confined itself to U.S. borders, and respected the sovereignty of foreign countries, that should work like a charm.
I'd like to see the U.S. safe, too. In particular, safe from military-influenced policy.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
There was a military project funded by the government for transporting information. They wanted to be able to transfer information in the event that sections of the US's infrastructure was blown up by nukes. The scientists working on it said it could be used for other uses, but they just said that to get the funding. It was really just for the military. I think it was called the "Internit" or something like that.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
You can be a perfectly moral and upstanding scientist AND still support the fact that the military is a necessity. You can be a perfectly moral and upstanding military member and simply enjoy science. I fall into both camps. I am a scientist AND I am in the military. Would I do defense-based research? Certainly. The result of a scientific enterprise is no less valid or interesting simpy due to the source of the funding and the result may well be useful and necessary. Perhaps I would be helping to reduce casualities on all sides of a conflict or, at the very least, helping to make sure my compatriots will come home from the next brushfire intact.
Oh the shame! I should seek to force our military men and women (and myself) to use old, outdated, obsolescent weapons and defenses, thus ensuring a large dead body count in future battles. Afterall, it is self evident that any and all of our (USA) soldiers are monsters and robotons. They aren't your neighbors, brothers, sisters, fathers, uncles, etc. They only seek to kill, kill, kill without mercy and so seek the most monstrous ways of doing this killing possible. OF COURSE it would be "wrong" to help ensure that our military will succeed in future military endeavors. As a scientist, I should instead seek to make their lives miserable and short and make defending the Constitutions and Bill of Rights extremely precarious due to lack of good military tools.
And don't get me started on how there is not a lick of military-based research that ultimately helps society as a whole quite apart from its original intended military focus. There is NEVER any benefit outside the military.
Grow up. Splitting the atom (for instance) has both benign and ugly uses and these uses cannot be fully separated. Simply because one of the first uses was to blow stuff up doesn't make the contribution of the scientists that permitted it wrong. This holds true on virtually ALL military-funded research.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Linux could be used by the Department of Defense. It could even be used by al Qaeda. So should we abandon Linux?
The whole concept that people should refuse to do work for the DoD just because some 60's-era peaceniks think their point of view is somehow morally superior to everyone elses and that the only reason scientists would do DoD work is because they have a selfish addiction to money is absurd. "Give peace a chance" and "greedy capitalists" all in a single concept, priceless!
NEWS FLASH: We all hate war. But war is going to happen. We should be ready when it does happen and that doesn't mean that we start preparing when we see an immediate threat. If I can help my country build a more effective defense such that an attack on our country is less probable or, if there is a need for war, that fewer of my fellow citizens (our soliders) are killed in combat, AND I can make a buck doing it, that sounds like a sweet deal to me. I'll do it in a heartbeat. And I'll do it whether Bush or Clinton is president because, in the end, I'll be helping to save the lives of soldiers regardless of who sends them into combat.
If you're going to accept this whole "addicted to defense dollars" then we might as well accept the theory that many scientists that profess global warming is real are doing so to assure a continuing stream of federal research dollars.
People, the 60's are over. Even Clinton is history. Move on and stop being rebels without a cause, it gets old.
Like it or not, the military is and has been the major driver in technological advancement.
Why?
Want to see some of the tech the DoD is funding? Check out their SBIR Program, specifically the recent Project Awwards
Logic is not Divine.
Hmm. My intellectual opinion is that pacifism is completely irresponsible, and no rational person can adopt it as a belief.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Actually, I would say that all Americans are increasingly addicted to government subsidies, and just lump scientists in with the rest of us.
Currently hooked on AMP
You would be hard pressed to find something that doesn't have some sort of military use. To use that as an execuse is just plain silly.
Besides, huge numbers of important discoveries were made on the military dime. Pencillin, for example, was developed during WW2 through government funding.
Just because something is funded by the military doesn't make it a weapon. Just because something is not funded by the military does not make it non-military.
-- Will program for bandwidth
This paragraph show a wierd sort of rationalization that these guys do:
He won't take money from the military, because it's "blood money", but has no problem ripping apart living breathing rats to get at neural tissue. Sure it may be cultured now, but even that culture had to come from some once living rat. This isn't even medical research here, he's using the neurons to control robots. Why not take a neurel net chip and use that, if your so concerned with the morals of your research? I personally don't care, I eat meat, I wouldn't have any problem taking money from the DoD for research, and don't give a rat's ass (ahem) for dead rats, but I'd like to point out some inconsistancy in his moral outrage.
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
Condoms are dual use too!
I would like to point out that according to CNN and various other news sources, the requested additional 87 billion is not just for Iraq, but also for afganistan. So in all, it seems like a halfway decent deal to me.
Besides, in terms of the government, 187 Billion dollars is not a whole lot of money.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Hey asshole, Did it ever occur to you that part of the reason might be that they don't share your ideology in the first place?!
If anyone would like to learn more about how technologies originally developed for the miliary have found their way into everyday civilian use, the program Tactical to Practical premieres tonight on the History Channel, 9PM Eastern.
That quote is from Edmund Wilson's 1963 book The Cold War and the Income Tax: A Protest which I reviewed a few days ago at The Picket Line, a blog I run to chronicle my experiences with tax resistance
The point being that there's a continuum of attitude towards the government - from active participation, active cooperation, collaboration, passive acquiescence, resentment and passive resistance, to active resistance. Many people who think of themselves as being in opposition to the government-sponsored evils they know about (and who congratulate themselves for this) are actually contributing to and supporting the government in all but attitude and words.
Thoreau put the moral responsibility in these words:
Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
To argue that the US spends "too much" on Defense is hard to qualify. For these reasons: (1) A LARGE part of defense funding goes to basic scientific research ( I can tell you about mine if you're interested, and if you can tell me in 4 steps how that will immediately create a "better" bomb, I'll give you a cookie.) Exactly how much of this can be attributed to "battlefield dividends" is rather cloudy. The DOE/NSF gets cut since it's harder to make the case that your research has application or positive financial ramifications down the road. The only reason the defense departments get all the money, is because this is what is accepted by the MAJORITY of americans. They want to believe that the money being poured into this endless bucket will save an american life. "Fight the ideal war?!" Scientists are purely playing the game - I see it around me constantly. As in most of life's pursuits, we're burdened by financial restrictions. You can't build a collider or an electron microscope or an x-ray telescope with pocket change. In the scientists view, they will do anything to receive proper funding. The last thing on their minds while doing the actual research is the Defense's interest. That only enters the situation when it's a week before your annual report is due and you use your creativity to convince the powers that be that your research is important. Proposal writing is an ART, not a SCIENCE. (2) Maybe we should look at the Defense-to-education ratio. There is absolutely no substitute for smart, motivated people. These are becoming increasingly few and far between...particularly in the decrease of physics/engineering majors (with the exception of CS) over the past decade or two. All of the smartest students in Science Grad school in this country are from abroad. That is well known. How long can we play this game with the allure of money to control research? Hence the cycle continues. Get Exxon and company into prime form, and we'll all be happy...i guess. Oh, then people will hate us more, and we'll have to spend more money.... There is only a limited amount of wealth in this world. Let us not forget this, people. The minute my research becomes viable for defense is the minute I stop. Bottom line: I don't mind using their money, as long as I know it's in the pursuit of fundamental knowledge of how our physical world operates.
And cut admissibility theorems for constructive logics that can be used to show the existence of normal proofs for any provable proposition or ...
oops, don't tell the DOD!
This may be in part because scientists, like most other citizens, agree that the U.S. is facing dangerous foes. But some dissidents argue the cause is more likely that Pentagon cash has become an addiction that scientists rationalize by working on 'dual use' technologies...
I swear this is so biased. It just goes to show how many people just refuse to believe what they have right before their eyes. Perhaps there are actually some people who want to help OUR military. Perhaps they think that having it stronger and able to perform better in causes I think are JUST, is actually a good thing!
Ohh, but no, that couldn't be. These scientists must be led on - carrot on a stick style - by the government and couldn't possibly agree willingly.
I'll tell you this: recently the military has drastically increased the requirements of robustness in many areas of technology, whether it's computer science, robotics, or what have you. We're talking demo's 4 times a year to show a working to-date prototype. It doesn't work? Your funding is cut!
Basically, if you work on any reasonable project for the military, you are guarenteed to have your head out of the clouds and feet firmly planted here on earth. Not all cases, but like I said, things are becoming more stringent.
Further, the way we are pushing the envelope and making constant advances should be seen as positive for EVERYONE involved. Civilians get killed less, our soldiers get killed less/are happier, wars are over faster, soldiers return home faster, and one point people always dance around: THE ENEMY IS KILLED FASTER. This is only wrong in an unjust war, and I don't care what you think about the WMD hunt or American hegemony, saying it was wrong to take out Saddam is saying he was good. The thousands of graves of political prisoners is another example of folks refusing to see that which is staring them in the face.
Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!
Maybe this is redundant, but I don't think I've seen anyone mention it yet. Is it likely that wars are going to stop because of a lack of research? I doubt it. If "war technology" never improved from this day forward, we'd still be blowing one another up. While I can appreciate how declining funding from the DoD might be meaningful as a protest, what you might be saying in effect is, "I'd rather see carpet bombing than precision guided bombs." Or perhaps, "I'd prefer it if our soldiers weren't protected from chemical agents used by our enemies." Even if it is assumed that research done with DoD funds will only have a military application, it by no means follows that its only function is to kill more people. It might have the opposite effect.
Actually, this is incorrect, at least for the those issued to police which will, in fact, often shoot through even winter coats. More likely to leave marks that way, though.
...of posting this via the progeny of ARPAnet!
-DARPA-based network junkie
All the examples of the above post are things that are done by engineers rather than scientists. Here at slashdot we should know the difference.
Me Zog, cousin of Og.
Og funny, make Zog laugh!
-kgj
I'm inclined to doubt that statement. I was at a meeting last spring where a guy who was high in the NSF directorate charged with funding computer science gave a presentation to a group of computer science profs and research staff at a major research university. He said that they were seeing more grant proposals from profs who had who had traditionally taken DARPA money but who were now looking toward NSF, and that NSF's numbers showed that the NSF's share as a percentage of Computer Science research funding was rising as DARPA's was falling. There was muttered agreement among some of the professors. The reason seemed to be growing discontent with DARPA, but was clearly unwilling to elaborate on this in public.
No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.
yeah, darn those scientists who invented fire to cook my food with the dual purpose of burning villages.
wait, i forgot how to make a sarcasm tag. anyway, the point is that many things useful in civilian life can be useful to the military. nanotechnology that keeps your jeans dry can also keep fatigues dry, for example.
depending on what you're developing, just because you're doing it (partly) for the military may not make it blood money to everyone. the nanotech i just mentioned doesn't directly kill anyone, and the missile tracking system the article post mentions, arguably, saves people.
"Mister Potato-head --MISTER POTATO-HEAD! Backdoors are not secrets!" (War Games, 1983)
I'm a physicist, currently doing purely theoretical work with stuff that has little relevance to military applications, but I'm also in the National Guard. Every year I qualify with an M-16 so that I can pop off targets (people) 300 meters away, and I don't even have a combat MOS. I'd be happy to do research into weapon systems or anything that'd enhance our battlespace effectiveness. Why? Because it makes the thought of going to war with the United States or its allies absolutely terrifying to our enemies.
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." -George Orwell
"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." -George Washington
This is not a very good argument seeing as how our weapon's research spending is many times larger than any other country. And that most other countries with significant spending (such as the EU) do weapons research only so they do not fall too far behind the us.
We can easily cut our spending by 3/4 without any fear that we will surrender our technological edge.
Actually, radio played a huge role in the Rwanda genocide, with many talk radio broadcasters not only urging that people be killed, but telling people where and when to meet, and where large groups of refugees were hiding.
Check out this website and learn that not even a tiny fraction of the military expenses could solve a shitload of humanitarian problems.
There are a few good reasons to have an army, weapons, police, civilian order and whatnot.
But there's something fundamentally wrong with the US, Chinese and European weapons industry among others, and the growing dependance of scientists for military funding.
While some countries haven't even begun to self-govern themselves we're spending more on weapons than on any other problem we're faced with today.
Nomatter what your politics are and where you live, doesn't that feel a bit wrong?
The really cute thing is, stating such an opinion more likely than not turns you into a "naive".
I think, therefore I am...I think.
palindromes aren't what? That doesn't make any sense.
Once you realize that the dual use argument applies to everything in our world, consider this: If you, your family, your city, or your nation are being attacked, it is not only your right, it is your responsibility to defend yourself and your neighbors. And sometimes, you need to kill enemies in order to stay alive yourself.
As far as the Pentagon money is concerned, I wouldn't worry about it too much. It's not like the U.S. is going all over the world like the Roman empire and taking control of everything in sight. These technologies are for defense; they have the good side effect of commercial use; and if some country ends up getting attacked with them, it's probably their own damn fault anyway.
If the Village Voice thinks it's bad to take the DoD's money for research, then it (and any of its supporters) should pony up and pay the scientists so that the DoD is not the only game in town.
I don't see how this is a bad idea. Technological advances have always come from the military. What? They want people getting killed instead of just robots being destroyed?
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
In blunt terms, the anonymous submitter who began this discussion is dreadfully wrong when he implies that the United States of America (USA) is equivalent to totalitarian states like China (which includes Taiwan and Hong Kong) that emphasize military spending. Military spending in the USA is geared towards protecting lives. For example, in the Serbian military conflict (in which the Chinese supported the Serbians committing gross human-rights atrocities against the Kosovars in Kosovo), the Americans went out of their way to use precision military technology to destroy only military targets and to avoid hitting civilian targets like hospitals and schools .
We all can agree that merely needing weapons suggests the dreadful state of human affairs. Weapons are a necessary evil. Someone must develop them. That "someone" might as well be Westerners because we need them to safeguard the finest civilization known to human history.
Even the Japanese have awoken to this reality. Unlike the militaristic Chinese (which includes Taiwanese and Hong Kongers), the Japanese are extreme pacifists and have a constitution that forbids the use of force to settle overseas conflicts. However, after (1) the recent launching of nuclear-capable missiles by the North Koreans and (2) the recent confirmation of North Koreans kidnapping Japanese, Japanese policy makers are realizing the importance of developing state-of-the-art weapons systems. For the first time in recent memory, the Japanese are initiating discussions with the Americans on researching and building an impenetrable missile shield as soon as possible.
Look at the great way GWB has handled our little excursion in Iraq. There's no way in hell I'd work for or in a job supporting the US military. It's misused constantly, with innocents killed all the time....
War is wrong. Those who support it to be able to drive a nice new SUV in suburban America are selfish fools.
Indeed, DARPA often seems to act as if the Cold War never ended, propositioning or transitioning grandiose projects that have no foes capable of fighting them.
Oh, yeah, like we should stop and wait until someone catches up. Whether in the military, business, sports, etc. it is NEVER, EVER a good idea to stop and rest on your laurels. To do so, you insure that someone is going to pass you by when you least expect it. The only thing I can think of why these bleeding hearts what this to stop is that they want our enemies to win.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Well, I know that when I want to read biased unsubstantiated propaganda packaged as journalism, I turn first to the Villege Voice.
Where is the reporting to back the claim that U.S. scientists that don't take Pentagon money are "extremely rare"?
What we have here is a few anecdotal reports about a few people who apparently think that all weapons are evil and have chosen to preserve their unsullied souls by opting out of the Pentagon money pump. Well, good for them. Let's hope that they occasionally recall that they're able to act in this selfish fashion because other people are willing to use weapons (and give their lives) to defend their right to make their own choices.
Since the Voice makes its money by catering to the prejudices of country-loathing snobby wanna-be leftists. I'm not surprised to see them carry this little piece of phony muckraking.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
V, radio, even the internet were all initialy military projects.
One out of three isn't bad, I guess, but you are wrongly attributing the early development of TV and radio.
Guglielmo Marconi acquired the first patent in radiotelegraphy in 1896 and opened a company that manufactured and marketed his invention (Wireless Telegraph and Signal Company) in 1897. It was initially used to comunicate telegraph signals to ships, both comercial and military, and to bridge gaps in existing telegraph infrastructure where wires would be difficult to install or expensive to maintain. He did sell plenty of radio equipment to various militaries during WW1, but no military was funding his research until that time.
Television was invented over a period of many years, but there was no successful implementation until Philo T. Farnsworth demonstrated his invention (FarnoVision) in 1927. There is some evidence that a Russian emigrant named Vladimir Zworykin invented a cathode ray tube capable of displaying an image while working for RCA in 1923, but there is no evidence that his invention worked, no first hand accounts of a demonstration, and no-one has been able to build a working model of his "Iconoscope" using the designs or informaton registered with the patent (RCA attempted to "pull a SCO" on Farnsworth after a patent was granted in 1938). Earlier methods of transmitting images used vastly different technology, relying on mechanical and optical means for creating an image from a light source, produced still images of too poor quality to be of any use, and cannot really be considered the same technology at all. The drive behind this research is almost universally attributed to "predicted consumer demand" and not military applications.
As for the "good and bad" of military funding for research, IMHO the bad is that technology that has valid civilian uses may end up not being available to the public due to "National Security" concerns until after a large corporation has retooled for comercial production (and patented every concievable derivitive tech), preventing any real competition from developing in the R&D or consumer market. The good of it is that there is increased funding for researchers who have ideas to develop.
As for the good/bad of military tech, there is little to keep the military from applying "civilian" tech to military purposes (see the paragraph on radio above).
yet American scientists who refuse military work are exceedingly rare today.
This is just plain wrong on the face of it. Does Mr. Anonymous Submitter truly believe that most American scientists today work for the military? Most work for universities, the DOE, NIH, NASA, or industry. Do they stand on a soap box and yell (as the quoted scientists in the Village Voice article) "I refuse to accept military money! My principles are better than yours!"? No, they simply choose to work in fields where the military doesn't. Say, on cancer or HIV, or in astrobiology, or one of the fifty-seven branches of physics that have no military applications.
What a load of bullshit. False premises, holier than thou egos, and let's not even get into the argument that those scientists who self-righteously refuse military money are all too happy to accept the benefits of living in a country where their freedom to be self-righteous assholes is guaranteed by a large military budget.
I say this as a fairly liberal scientist who would rather not work on weapons of mass destruction, but isn't so naive to think that they aren't a necessary evil.
There are some here that suggest that taking DoD funding is immoral because it helps create weapons and promotes violence.
These same people on election day vote for people whose purpose is to use violence to effect social change. It isn't obvious because we pay someone else (police, federal agents, etc) to apply that violence for us.
Keep in mind: the government isn't there to give advice. Every law is backed by the threat of force. Every social program advocated and every tax dollar taken is backed up by the threat of violence. Anyone already taking some kind of public money is using the threat of violence to get paid. People that refuse to pay are threated with jail.
When you punch that chad in the voting booth, you set off a huge chain of consequences -- some of those chains lead to the possible imprisonment of others.
I may be stretching things a bit, but I can't help but see the similarity between voting and a kind of political "fire-and-forget" weapon.
There are some of us who hope and strive for a better future. Then there are those who don't care and are willing to accept the pitiful condition the world is presently in.
Sorry, I agree with him. The future should be a place where there are no militaries. The future should be a place where human beings are civilized enough to not brandish weapons at one another. Until then, we are not much better than animals.
I don't think our government concentrates well over 400$ billion/year to these causes. Also remember our government regularly detracts money from education and funnels into the military. This is not progress.
Well, you do have a point there. Evil abroad perpetuates evil at home it seems. Good to know that the low-lifes of the world have such a good handle over us.
No doubt the human race is stuck in a neverending cycle. So long as it persists, progress will be minimal.
Join Tor today!
I guess I'm taking this OT now, but show me a country that isn't greedy with blood on its hands and doesn't act 100% in its best interests when it gets the chance to do so. The only reason [your country name here] isn't a war-mongering powerhouse is there's already a war-mongering powerhouse keeping yours in line.
Then one day some we'll probably get a bit too powerful, try to take on too much and some other country will come here and kick our American asses. Then they'll grow too powerful and...you get the picture
That was always my simple-minded idea of how it worked. It sucks, but I think it'll keep going unless humans evolve signifcantly past what we are now.
Going to a political view of it, I think the Terminator said it best: "It's in your nature to destroy yourselves."
You are working on missile defense? What are you doing here reading slashdot then? Get the lead out! If you hurry, you might have the missile defense ready by the time the North Koreans are ready to sell ballistic missiles that can reach us to the highest bidder.
Sure, that's not the only way to attack us, but it is a way to do so. The FBI and CIA are working on preventing some kinds of attacks, the TSA others, and the and Marines still others, with varying degrees of success, but at present if some crazy did get a hold of a ballistic missile (and I am sure the package would include a launcher and technicians to punch in the lat and lon) there is no defense against it.
Until you hurry up and build us one.
And about the ABM treaty... It was an agreement between two parties, the Government of the USA and the Government of the Soviet Union. Those two parties were solely responsible to eachother, not the UN or the world at large, to keep their obligations. One of those parties no longer exists, thank the Lord, and our obligation to them to uphold the treaty evaporated at the same time they did. We pretended to continue the treaty out of courtesy and inertia, and finally negotiated a formal end to it, but we did not have to.
Face it, the balance of world power IS broken, and thank whatever God you believe in that it broke our way.
And as far as the original article goes: I watched "Real Genius" and even adopted some of its philosophy about not wanting to develop weapons. I may have talked myself out of a job that way. But then September 11 happened, and we had a war thrust upon us. Project Crossbow would sure be useful right now, but we don't have it in part because people like me couldn't see that even weapons have moral purposes.
Lots of technical and environmental problems are solved by the application of vast amounts of nuclear power
If you really want to understand this stuff, you should read Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky. Granted, only a small part of the book talks about scientists' relationship with the military, but you need to undstand the underlying power structures first, which he lays out in great detail.
But a better one is: who cares?
If they don't want it, then don't use it.
This is not new. ENIAC was built to compute artillery tables. Radar, synthetic rubber, and penicillin were all invented (or developed to their modern forms) during World War II. One of the earliest uses for transistors was for on-board guidance on the Minuteman missiles. The Internet came out of a research project to build a communication network which can withstand a nuclear attack.
The military can afford to spend large amounts of money on R&D without any immediate ROI, this lets them fund research corporations would never touch.
Honestly, virtually all R&D in this country is financed by the government, usually by the military (often using defense contractors in the process). Internet? Yes. Aerospace technology for Boeing aircraft? R&D paid for by Pentagon defense contracts. Biotech, pharmaceuticals? Basic research funded by government. I've become interested in this topic recently...very little of R&D can not be traced back to the government. The one big private sector R&D success that towers above all others is Bell Labs - transistors, UNIX, C, you name it. But they were a government-granted monopoly! It's interesting because the economy really goes along on GDP growth, and that is mainly pushed by R&D leading to increased productivity. And the source of this is almost always the government, and usually through the military.
I don't think dual purpose is the issue. It's original intent. One of the above posters mentioned Linux being used by the DOD and that's a great example of something that was created for a particular purpose but can be used in multiple ways. Only Linus could say whether he's ideologically for or against Linux's use in the military. I know that whenever I develop something I constantly ask "What am I dong this for?" and "What are the benefits vs. drawbacks?"
"Why?" is just as important a question as "How much will you pay me?"
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
Some wars are unnecessary already, like a certain recent one that ends with Q, so I guess the president already accomplished that.
Option-Shift-K.
Imagine if we could reliably target terrorist leaders. Of course if we could do that then eventually it would mean that the terrorist could reliably target their enemies, i.e. our leaders. (I suspect they currently target civilians largely because of the difficulty of targeting political leaders.) This would probably lead to fewer civilian casualties but I'm not sure it would lead to fewer casualties.
Weapons are just a special case of progress. As a society we need to be more aware and better prepared for how our lives will be transformed through progress, military or otherwise.
The linking of patriotism with "having the most advanced weapons" says a lot.
I look forward to working on intellegent killing machines when I get out of school, so that less lives are lost on our side of a war. It is what I am going to school for. Isn't that kind of the whole point of war, to win with as little loss on your side as possible.
The scientists will take Pentagon's money, from there, they secretly produced the perfect robot. (With human intelligence, and such)(May it be those Mechs, or the Gingor in Empire Earth - Novaya Russia Campaign) One day the United states wil mass produce such robots. Bush's son happens to be the president, and he sudenly launched an attack on nearby nations. Without such technology, nations fall one by one. The world belongs to Bush's family.
Stating the obvious, there is a difference between actively working on a piece of technology (say vision) used to diagnose say skin cancer and actively working on a piece of technology used to guide missiles, even though they might be the same underneath.
In the former researchers make all the effort to adapt their thought process to the medical problem at hand. They might talk to doctors, patients, etc. If they are successful they might save some lives. In the latter they might think about accuracy, speed and whatever, but they know it's all about detonating that bomb at the right time and in the right place. They might talk to generals and strategists. If they are successful they might more accurately kill the people the military wanted to kill.
In science and technology, R. Feynman famously said that the prime problem is not to fool oneself, because Nature cannot be fooled. If you work on weapons development of any kind and you are rationalizing that you are helping your country defend itself and that maybe your technology might be used for pacific uses as well, who are you fooling?
There is also the argument that better technology kill fewer people because it is more accurate. This always assumes that the users of that technology are both wise and cautious. It's up to you but I don't trust anybody with weapons in hand even if they are the `good guys'.
Chomsky best explains this system in Understanding Power, but here's an excerpt from a speech he conducted with Corporate Watch:
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9805-micros oft.html
It's just another example of corporate welfare, and our entire country is dependent upon it. Don't fool yourselves with this "free-market" rhetoric/ Milton-Freedman-University-of-Chicago bullshit.
We can easily cut our spending by 3/4 without any fear that we will surrender our technological edge.
Agreed. I would love to see this cut back. I should have been clearer that this was in response to "any investment" at all, not necessarily the amount of that investment.
It's worse than that, I'm afraid. Scientific research, in general (that which isn't beholden to the private sector) has become thoroughly bureaucratized. If you don't provide the desired results (and you are told what those will be) you won't get the grant. Science has taken a back seat to politics (of all kinds) in this country and it is going to get worse.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Killing people is good when those people would like to kill you first. I only wish we could figure out how to kill them all at once with a minimum amount of mess to clean up.
"Troll" does not mean "a post which presents factual information that I disagree with or find inconvenient in my ideology." There was nothing trollish about the above comment; it presents a humorous, on topic response to the parent.
Err, which United States was this written from? Certainly not the North American superpower of the 20th & 21st centuries.
I mean, we're talking about the country where government subsidized research has produced or contributed to the production of nuclear weapons, intercontinental ballistic missiles, all manner of aircraft, the digital computer, electronic communications, and a host of others -- all of which have direct military applications, and might or might not have non-military uses.
They don't call it the military-industrial complex for nothing.
The current norm, where the ultimate source of funding behind a significant portion of public, private, and academic research is the US federal government (and particularly, the defence department), goes back at least as far as World War II. That was sixty years ago now, yet the patterns you see today are substantially in lines with ones that ran through the Cold War and back to the Manhattan Project and other WW2 efforts.
To suggest that this all on "21st century counter-terrorism efforts" is to ignore that the trends being observed have been in place for many decades.
Do yourself a favor and go read some of Noam Chomsky's writings & talks. Among his political arguments is the idea that these structural arrangements have been around for a long, long time, and much of both the strengths & the weaknesses of America can be traced to these activities -- e.g. the collusion between military & industry directly leads both to America's economic dominance and to the fact that the USA is the world's biggest target.
A lot of people disagree with Chomsky's arguments, but it seems to me that anyone trying to have a serious conversation about such matters has to at least be aware of these views, or they're basically arguing from ignorance.
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
lets look at the situations most scientists wold be in.
I have an interest in researching X.
X has many applications, some military.
I don't like the idea of the militarty applications I think it raises to many ethical questions.
Its just as wrong to not develop X because of the social benifits X could provice.
If I develop X the pentagon will use it wether I take money from them or not.
I will develop X
I will take the pentagon money because it will facilitate the development of X and by me a new car.
That is the logic that anyone would go through it makes no since to do anything different.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Unfortunately, as long as countries like Iraq have useful idiots like you to help them out, the adults in America will have to go to war to clean up your messes.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Actually, since American military might is the ONLY thing in the world holding back tyrants who would just as soon see the entire world under their thumb as spit, the most ethical thing you can do is take DOD grant money and build something so impressive that it scares tyrants like Kim Il Jong to death.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
I never said the US wasn't the lesser of two evils, but they're not the police of the world. That's it.
Option-Shift-K.
Hungry nations?
The verb isn't "facing". The verb is "making".
I tend to agree that the capacity to detect biological weapons looks beneficial. Who can deny that the military has developed some things which have helped us.
On the other hand, a person could ask: If our military is undeterred by a foreign country's weapons of mass destruction, does that remove an obstacle which would otherwise lesson the likelihood of war?
The U.S. never attacked the Soviet Union because the USSR had nuclear weapons, and the U.S. had no answer to that. Both countries would have been destroyed by nuclear conflict. (the MAD doctrine =) Both countries acknowledged the effectiveness of the arrangement, and signed the ABM treaty (anti ballistic missile treaty) - a treaty which banned development of things like SDI "star wars" missile defense.
Well, "star wars" sounded good. On paper, it would have stopped incoming missiles. Who would have denied its usefulness? It sounded beneficial.
However, when examined more closely, "star wars" would only have caught second strike nuclear weapons. Second strikes were the weapons to be launched AFTER your enemy had nuked your FIRST STRIKE nuclear weapons. In essence, this "peaceful missile defense shield" would have given the U.S. the capacity to initiate nuclear war without suffering retaliation.
The implementation of "star wars" would have destabilized an otherwise stable military / diplomatic arrangement by giving the U.S. the capacity to initiate nuclear war without fear of nuclear retaliation.
In conclusion, I think that the ability to detect the presence of biological weapons (and to respond defensively) sounds positive. On the other hand, if R&D in this area were upsetting a balance, and making war more likely / tempting, I would still question it.
-Sam
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
Are you sure that American scientists can't be forced to work for the government? What evidence do you have? Lets just see what the anthax guy has to say about the military and scientists...
This sig is in Spanish when you're not looking....
In all this talk about ethics and dual use and whatnot, the whole point about the military funding private weapons manufacturers is shot to hell. Just skipping over the whole ethical arguments about the terrorism of western governments and their militaries, there is a whole other can of worms.
The american government is pouring billions upon billions of dollars into the hands of private industry for research and production. That's taxpayer money that goes directly into the hands of private corporations and is never seen again.
Yeah, the US gets some more weapons out of it; but really... the US is already beyond the military capacity of virtually all the developed countries put together. And yet billions are still spent on constant renewal of military equipment. But new high tech missiles and sattelites aren't going to stop a guy with a box cutter determined to take out an airplane.
The massive misappropriation of funding has been going on for centuries really (well 200 years I suppose). There has always been massive government support for private industry at the expense of common citizens.
This is left as an exercise for the reader.
No one ever said anything about regression, so it's kind of silly to bring it up, isn't it?
The question isn't about developing weapons to protect your cousin, it's developing weapons that will kill him. KILL, not DEFEND. The technology that is being developed, the science that is researched, will be defensive, will be useful, will be peaceful, but it will also be deadly.
Let's use the past as an example. You have the opportunity to take government money to develop a more efficient and reliable mass production factory line, one that you know will be used to mass produce more reliable, cheap, and powerful rifles. Rifles that will be used to kill people.
Now the question is, would you willingly work on that system knowing this, with the very strong possibility that such rifles will be used against your cousin in the dissident south? Or your brother at college, who is protesting the Viet Nam war? Or any number of situations?
Because developing technology that makes it easier to kill has *nothing* to do with defense. It means when a mugger has such a weapon, when a policeman has such a weapon, when a kid steals such a weapon, then it's that much easier for your cousin, son, brother, sister, mother to be killed.
Do you have a moral or ethical responsibility, knowing that, to abstain from such research?
Some of these scientists feel that kind of moral guilt.
GPL Deconstructed
Costa Rica has no regular, indegenous military forces. However, that doesn't mean that it is without defense. It does have the Fuerza Publica and the Coast Guard. It also has a fully functioning police force. Additionally, since the mid 50's it has had an "in force" treaty with the United States in which the U.S. would provide it military articles and services. The government of Costa Rica does have a military budget, or at least a budget to procure weapons. In FY99 Costa Rica spent $69 million (US) on what the CIA terms a "military expenditure".
Perhaps Costa Rica does not require a military, and that is nice. That simply means that Costa Rica will have to rely on other nations to provide its security in dire consequences.
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
Human beings and other creatures are insanely easy to kill. Most technologies have dual uses. Therefore, just because you work for the "Ministry of Peace" instead of the DoD doesn't make your work any less likely to help some enterprising individual who wants to kill one or more people. Such is progress. If you want out of the rat-race, join the Amish.
This really is a non-issue. It's like sitting around and debating whether or not we should have invented the wheel because of all the poor people, rabbits, dogs, etc. that have been squished by 'em.
Agreed.
I'll just add that the idea of seperating a military technology from a technology in general is a waste of time. It's an even greater waste of time to seperate military technology into a "good" column and a "bad" column.
If you are a scientist, researching for a military organization seems to make sense if the opportunity presents itself. After all, if you like the country, wouldn't you want to help to provide for the common defense? And if you don't like it, why are you living there?
And I'll add another news flash: dollars mean that the house of representatives have passed a bill allowing spending. It's not as though the people have no say.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
I never said the US wasn't the lesser of two evils, but they're not the police of the world. That's it.
You are right, they are not. But neither is anyone else. And until such time, if it ever comes, that there is a single unified global government with consistently enforced laws that apply equally to everyone it is up to the individual countries to do what they feel is in their own best interest.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Do you understand the term? It's to posit a strawman only for you to knock it down.
You keep bringing up straw men.
The *only* nation in the world that has ever fielded nuclear weapons in war is the United States. In that respect, it is in everyone else's interests to research and develop deterrents to stop *us* from dominating them with the threat of nuclear war.
That was what drove Russia, and the USSR, into social and economic collapse, because they couldn't keep up with us.
That is the straw man. Even if we do not research (cannot, really) defenses against nuclear programs, will not stop attacks; the terrorists of 9/11 did not use nuclear weapons, after all. They used our *freedom* against us. It's something we have to watch, because our strength is our weakness. We let them buy tickets, we let them carry box cutters, we let them take flying lessons, we let them peaceably congregate, we let them communicate using our phone, mail, and internet infrastructures, work, pay taxes, live in the US.
You cannot stop the terrorists of 9/11 without also taking away the freedoms that make our country unique and special.
Better weapons had no influence on the terrorists. We supplied them with the Boeing airliners and the jet fuel they used as weapons.
What research can we perform then that will stop that?
But back to your straw man argument. You seem to have missed the point of my previous post; if your research led to a better way to manufacture steel, which would be used to make more reliable rifles, do you have an ethical or moral responsibility to see that it doesn't get used to make weapons?
Weapons that your local neighborhood gangster will buy to use against you or your cousin?
The question is: What is the line where you as an individual take responsibility for the actions perpetrated because of your lack of foresight? Even worse, perpetrated because you ignored your foresight?
These scientists can see terrible things happening because of their research, and rather than pursue the research and see the terrible things, they change their focus and use different monies and try to actively create a better world than the one that is being asked of them.
You fail to see that. You only see "Us vs them" and "Kill or be killed". Thats not the question. The gun that's used to kill little children in neighborhoods is the same technology that is used by the soldier to kill enemies in Viet Nam. How many times can you name where we, as a country, had to defend ourselves in the past 100 years?
I can only think of *one* situation... Pearl Harbor.
And prior to that, how often were we the aggressor, and how often were we the victim? I think, unfortunately, the paintbrush of history will look upon our nation as violent and aggressive.
GPL Deconstructed
Implicit in your question is the assumption that the U.S. is somehow passively protecting someone, or something, in Costa Rica. Personally, I can't answer that. Its neighbors are Nicaragua and Panama. Do either of them sound like a threat? :)
I do remember a thing or two about central American History. The U.S. has "meddled" with BOTH of Costa Rica's neighbors, recently: Panama and Nicaragua.
The U.S. invaded Panama in the 80's. If memory serves, the Panama war was unjustified, illegal and arbitrary. Somehow, U.S. criminal law was used to justify the war, and capture Noriega (for smuggling drugs). (?-jurisdiction-!?)
Also in the 80's, this time using communism as the justification, the US secretly backed a guerilla war in Nicaragua. In that war, the U.S. backed the Contras, who, it turns out, were funded by profits from cocaine sales.
My point? The U.S. is not always RIGHT. I've watched our military stomp around the world fighting non-UN wars, while media-agitated Americans at home wave their flags (or protest).
I'd rather sit a few "urgent crises" out, rather than watch another war. I don't think a half-cocked military makes anyone feel safer. If the U.S. had recently invaded BOTH of my neighboring countries, neither of which was doing any harm, I'd be REALLY happy if it demilitarized.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
But what about Vince Cerf, et al., who took the "blood money", to develop a network for the military and government so that a communications network could be maintained to some degree or another in the event of a nuclear war?
If that is not technology that was intended to be used as part of the (current) ultimate end-game application of technology, I don't know what is.
EVERY technology has multiple uses, "good" and "bad" (and typically, many unintended ones as well).
My wife was a Navy nurse. Should the military not be allowed to enjoin medical people, because after all, there is a moral dilemma there, right?
Is she morally tainted? I think not.
All this shows is that the country maintains its borders and police force.
Dire Circumstances? Like What? Spider monkeys? =)
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
to elect competent and compassionate leaders which in the interests of defence would use this technology properly.
Unfortunately, most people are not capable of poking holes through punch cards properly.
Now we're made to suffer.
I don't make weapons. There are many non-lethal projects that the military needs done, most of them will benefit society as well as the military.
Thanks to ONR, I have a PhD, and my research may help save lives of soldiers and civilians alike someday.
Guns don't kill people -- people kill people.
But the guns seem to help a bit. (apologies to Eddie Izzard)
If you really think about it, the military - or at least war - has been the source of many technological or medical advances.
The Internet spawned from a military network, and to my recollection the jet engine was based on military research. In addition, I believe that penicillin was discovered/adopted in a war situation as well, though I could be wrong about that one?
Nothing drives human inginuity like trying to win a war. I think in many cases, it's the looming threat that causes humans to "work against the crunch" to come up with new and ingenious theories and technologies in such sitatuations. Nothing quite like the risk of being blown to hell to spark somebody to invent something to help out the home side, after all.
I'm not addicted to Pentagon cash, but lemme tell you something. As a financially challenged graduate student, from the bottom of my heart, God bless the Dept. of Homerand Seculity.
[o]_O
USA is a fascist totalitarian state run by military industry complexes. No wonder that scientist there work for military ops. Military intelligence, two words combined that can't make sense!
I agree with your point, but not your analogy. Its very possible many scientists profess global warming is real for any number of bizarre reasons, all the while secure in the knowledge that the very belief in the existence of "global warming" is nonsensical and unscientific. The precision of the numbers involved are laughable, and drawing conclusions based on such bad data is unforgivable. I'd like to meet a geologist who believes in global warming, may be one out there who's real bad at math.....
"I deeply regret the deaths and injuries that resulted from the atomic bombings, but my best explanation of why I do not regret working on weapons is a question: What if we hadn't?"
Edward Teller, 1908-2003
(Dr. Teller died today. This was quoted in his obituary.)
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Coz these are the people who want but to get benefits those USA soldiers are priviledged to, but without risking their lives as those soldiers.
What a bunch of pap! The economy is only dependent on the military in the sense that we need protection against those who would invade us and steal our goodies. The fact that government spending on basic research benefits the economy is a no-brainer, and is one (of many ) reason that America is so successful.
The economy does, however, benefit from military research.
Chomsky, of course, is a complete fool when it comes to issues political or economic. The example above shows that he has no concept of "value added." He makes the common mistake (more common because too many people listen to Chomsky) that a business which takes the fruits of basic research, invests in commercializing it (and typically greatly extending it) is somehow stealing it. It is hardly corporate welfare, since we all pay for it and WE ALL BENEFIT FROM IT. Would you rather that the government hadn't funded the early development of computers? And keep in mind that the government just gets things started, and then private enterprise makes massive investment (Intel, for example, does huge amounts of engineering and basic research) to advance the state of the art towards consumer and industrial products.
Things are far more complex than Chomsky makes them out to be, but that's because he normally is talking to the converted who are not going to apply any critical thinking.
The only good weather is bad weather.
Also not the police of the world: the United Nations.
P.S. The only people in America who acknowledge anti-American propaganda from Europe as being serious are those who are trying to leverage the hippy/Berkeley crowd for votes. Nobody else really cares about that bullshit, other than to remember who it is saying it.
Quite frankly, the military has cool stuff, and supports cool research. That is one positive mark for them. Second, I trust the military more than I do a bunch of hairbrained peaceniks or smooth talking politicians. Third, the military actually lays their life on the line to protect us, and I respect that even if politicians don't. Fourth, I know people in the military, and they are much more quality individuals than their detractors. I have no problem at all working on x-projects, and am actively looking for work that requires a security clearance. I find it offensive to be lumped into a group where it is assumed I only work on such research because I am adicted to government money.
Finally, as far as "dual use." Look around you. Everything is not only dual use, but triple and quadruple use. I can use a pencil sharpener to sharpen a pencil, or bonk someone on the head. Tools will be used in a variety of ways, and the military will use the research of peaceniks as readily as anyone else.
...our president is a warmongering imbecile.
He is like the village idiot that you worry about getting sucked up in a cult. He has already managed to alienate most of the world, and that's after only two minor wars. There is like a million other countries left, and pretty soon we'll have to war with rest of 'em, and when we do, we better have some of 'em killbots.
You know, I got into robotics and AI in hopes of making hookerbots, but since W got elected and I discovered www.fleshlight.com, I see that killbots have to be our top priority. May their code be tight and their "cerrated_saw" drivers be forever uncorrupted. God bless our killbots. God bless us all.
I see a lot of posts here saying, "The world is dangerous, therefore WE should have the best military. Why not accept defense money?" I think these people are missing out on a major reason why academics outside of military research don't like thinking of "us versus them," or "OUR military." It's because the academic community is world-wide. Researchers don't pay too much attention to borders, sure they have home town pride and such, but mostly they like to be able to talk to people who have good ideas, regardless of where everyone lives and who is at war with who. Imagine going to an academic conference, and when your buddy from country X asks you what you're doing you have to say that you can't tell, because you're keeping it in your country to make it's military stronger. You don't sound much like an academic scientist anymore. Scientists are supposed to be mostly concerned with figuring things out.
I work in Machine Translation, and I've seen my supervisor (Chinese-Canadian) grimace when he needs to admit that there's more money to be found in translating Mandarin to English, as it's currently on the U.S.'s list of "dangerous languages". To him its certainly not as simple as us versus them, and we're still happily working on French-English, which the U.S. could care less about, but which Canada could benefit from commercially.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm just throwing it out there, so all the people who can't figure out where the researchers are coming from can have a taste of their perspective.
The University of California system does weapons research for the government. The UC system would rather not do it, but choose to do it anyway. The reasoning being that, since the government will contract out weapons research anyway, it's better to do it in a open forum like a university where the public can review the findings, rather than behind the closed doors of a private institution. I think it's a good reason...
It's a shame the military doesn't push electric cars...If I have to sit behind another dickhead talking on his cell phone in his H2, oblivious to the green light in front of him, I'm going to scream.
>NEWS FLASH: We all hate war. But war is going to happen.
Yes, I know, at least as long as the good old US of A continue their current foreign policy.
USA has an unequaled record of military interventions abroad, between WWII and 9/11 they add up to 67 in total.
If the young and not so prosperous country has any traditions, acts of war is certainly one of them - it's up to you, dear voters, to do something about that.
--
Anon C. Oward
LOL ! This is rich coming from the largest distributor and manufacturer of WMD on the planet. If the US stopped arming the world things would be a little safer for people everywhere on the planet.
In August 1998, somebody bombed the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the Clinton Administration was under political pressure to do something decisive in return. The Pentagon claimed to have "convincing evidence" that a shadowy Saudi figure named Osama bin Laden was responsible, and they also "knew" he was involved with a chemical weapons factory in Sudan, so they sent about 75 cruise missiles to bomb the factory and some of Osama's camps in Afghanistan. Well, of course the "chemical weapons factory" wasn't one - it was the main pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, a country that was desperately in need of medicine given their poverty and civil war, and it's not clear who they killed up in Afghanistan either, but it certainly didn't include Osama. 9/11 was three years later.
In practice, the more effective precise weapons are, the more willing the people who have them are to get into situations where they're useful. The Bush Administration probably wouldn't have done the recent war in Iraq if it didn't have the weapons to do it.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
those who keep saying 'by inventing better ways to kill people i'm saving americans' are being naive. ...eventually someone else will copy your technology.... nukes stopped you wasting lives on invading japan?.. yeah, probably, but look at how safe a lot of lives are now when things keep flaring up with north korea or whoever else... ...if u invent railguns, someone will figure out how u did it, and start shooting down space shuttles or god knows what eventually.. probably without a huge investment, and it might only take 1 man.
First up I am a pacifist and hate all types of war but realise that sometimes its envitable. We have come to a point where war is becoming safer (so to speak) I watched Thin Red Line last night and realised we will probably never see a war like that again. WE no longer need thousands of men to storm an island. We can use smart missiles to take out certain things and destroy the military. As much as I objected to the invasion of Iraq, less civilians died this time than the first time (i think). It is definately getting better for our soldiers. I read today that 4 US soldiers were killed. In WW2 it would have been 4000 killed. So i think its a double edged sword. Hoepfully in the future we can get to a point where we can ( to use military jargon) decapitate the enemy without civilian deaths.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
Oh, I dunno about that. My sister is a Ph.D. student at a research institution that specializes in genetics. As far as I know, none of the people on her entire campus are working with the military or on any kind of weapons research. So, if they're "exceedingly rare", how come I can think of at least one place where I can point at literally hundreds of scientists who aren't involved in that kind of stuff at all? We're not assuming that all scientists study physics or chemistry or something, are we? I mean, there are life sciences as well...
not the most advanced weapons. The advenced weapons. i.e. the contract in question. Patriotism would encourage you to do what you country asked of you - develope the advanced technology required.
Besides, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, just presenting an idea, not my opinion.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
...is that most technicological and technical advances are the result of military research.
Civil aviation, trauma medicine, and communications are obvious examples. I admire military sciences, but deplore the way they tend to be utilized.
Hmm, Andorra?
Norway hasn't invaded anyone for quite some time and Nicaragua had the balls to go through proper diplomatic channels when the US was conducting terrorism there.
You do realize what happens if you work for the Defense Department, right? You can't publish. You can't talk to your friends about it. Good chance that you won't be able to leave your country, either.
And given the way your gouverment is currently changing, there's an excellent chance that you might pick up a WHOLE LOT OF TROUBLE in just a few years.
"because scientists...agree that the U.S. is facing dangerous foes"
Yes! Dangerous foes! Gods Own Country is being threatened! High time we create even more weapons to, uh, sell them to the rest of the world.
Yup. And your opponents *are* dangerous. Not because of their weapons (they're armed with AK-47, for heavens sake, instead of ICBMs), but because they were pushed so far that they're willing to get themselves killed just to get you.
And they were pushed by you.
Thank the Gods I don't live in the US anymore.
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
That an article bitching about military technology is using one to propagate itself.
Hello, DARPANET!?! Anybody home?!
Do you think that the transistor was invented because someone had a vision for consumer products? Of course not - they wanted non-mechanical switches that would withstand the physical abuses of military applications.
Do you think we went to the Moon because of curiosity? Hell no. We used the Moon to instill curiosity in the public to justify spending the money to develop long-range missiles capable of delivering payloads.
Do you think we invented radar to look at the weather and control commercial air traffic? Of course not. We invented it so we could see our enemies coming. Interesting sidenote, we did see the attack on Pearl Harbor coming, but the cloud on the radar was so big, the radar operator thought it was an error and didn't report it.
Do you think we invented Kevlar and Spectra for better brake pads? Light-weight projectile-tolerant panels, my friend...
The list goes on and on. 90% of the crap we use in our everyday lives was invented for some military purpose, including the Internet.
Died today. What a legacy. Thanks, Ed.
This, BTW, is irony.
Linux could be used by the Department of Defense. It could even be used by al Qaeda. So should we abandon Linux?
;-)
Yes. A good idea. Let's all abandon Linux.
Yeah, yeah, I know. -1, Troll.
So what are you saying -- that the EU is worried that if they don't keep up on their weapons research, we're going to sail across the pond and blow them to smithereens?
First of all, why shouldn't some EU citizens or countries be worried, after all, the Dutch could be, since the US already has a law enacted that allows them to invade The Hague and free (sic) US soldiers kept by the ICC for war crimes. Very nice thing to do to an ally (even one that supports the invasion and occupation of Iraq).
Second, the big countries in the EU (France, UK, Germany) don't need the incentive of the US to blow away billions on military research, but the exemple of the US propably makes them spend more. The other countries are being constantly reminded by the US that they should be spending more money on military research and development, albeit it that they're being reminded even more that they could also spend it on US military products.
Its like their enemies were a superadvanced alien race and not some Third-World terrorists.
Your country isn't so great if you'll end up fighting war after war because the rest of the planet hates you.
Actually not a strawman. The original post and subsequent replies have a definite flavor of 'all military research is bad, and all scientists who engage in such are sellouts'. Debate on how much is too much is certainly valid and good; coloring all military research and researchers as the cause of the world's problems is ... simply ignorant.
This is quite wrong; Sony and HP are well known major players in the world research and development.
Everyone who has done R&D knows the difference between research and development.
They don't understand that the technological concepts are developed far from the private sector in government-fundded research labs and universities.
AT&T and IBM are privarte companies and employs numerous nobel laureates and supported their work that lead to them getting the prizes. Your ignorance here is astonishing, your chutzpah is mindnumbing.
As a scientist...
I have my doubts.
Moderators: this guy has misstated so much I urge you to drop modding down a few levels.
And here i was thinking American military might is the ONLY thing in the world supporting the tyrants.
Maybe you could ask the rest of the world how they feel about that might and its use.
Or even beter,read up on the modern history of "the land of the free" as i neither have the time nor the energy to go over the catalog of abuse,torture,murder and coup's that where financed and or planned and executed by the USA
History does not repeat itself in that way. However, if you look at German history before WW1 (one, not two), the similarities with today US Government arguments is striking (increasing military spending, fuelled by ever-stronger military lobbies, increased illusion of being mighty and superior).
Yeah, Iraqi scientists had a really good reason to research WMD's, they were a lot more threatened by the United States than the United States is threatened by anybody else. Same goes with North Korean scientists... You people truly are blind, most of the "threats" towards your country are actually reactions to the way your country threatens the world.
I'm not addicted to DoD cash, but I *am* addicted to CIA cocaine. Does that count?
Half the planet is gone? So there's only 2.5 Billion humans left on Earth? Oh you were exaggerating, lying and fabricating because you don't want us to fight anyone, anywhere for any reason? Oh ok I get it now.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Scientists are interesting people. They're very smart and brilliant but they have the same failings as the rest of us. Their addictions or vice is technology itself. A scientist just isn't happy unless he's researching this, or disproving that. This requires 2 things which will ensure that the DoD will be able to manipulate ALL scientists both willing and unwilling until the end of time and that is 1. research is expensive and requires millions or billions of dollars that only the government has and 2. research requires communication. No scientist would be happy working on something brilliant only to never tell anyone about it. Besides to be sure it works he/she would want to subject their work to peer review. Well other scientists aren't the only ones observing the work being put out for review. The DoD is watching as well.....
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
oh for hell's sake, pull your head out of the dark stink.
If he's part of the problem so are you. He never said it was acceptable, he said it's going to happen. Burying your head in the sand and blaming politics or the world for it won't slow it down, but you're sure as hell willing to try. "Let's all get along!" you'll say... what a load. Millions die every year all over Africa alone from wars 'we' (you know, the country that everybody hates) have nothing to do with (and ain't it funny how they hate us for that too). Iran and Iraq made war for some 20 years with very little prodding from us [very little mind you, not 'no prodding']. The Balkans region has been warring for _centuries_... before we were even a country to hate.
War happens. Sometimes it's politics, sometimes it's social injustice, sometimes it's a big f'ing misunderstanding, but it happens. A lot. And if you've even seen pictures of it, you'll know that you can't ignore it, and you'd better damn well be prepared for it or you'll be on the side that gets buried, burned or blown to hell.
So let me wrap up in this little temper tantrum of mine by saying - you're a fool. While it would be nice if everyone would settle down and talk about it, not every does. More often than not they will, but sometimes they'd rather just kill you. And your family. and your neighbors, friends or just the folks standing next to you for being there. It's easier that way, and sometimes just more FUN. Just ask Milosevic... I'll bet that guy hates us too.
Welcome to an imperfect world.
No, you're missing it. Research isn't done by thinking up some crazy ass problem in order to justify finding a solution to it. Problems are encountered in day to day life, and research is done to work around such problems. This is why no one has given $5 billion in order to develop the transporter technology from Star Trek.
You don't usually spend a bunch of $$$ to build a material you have NO USE FOR. A lot of carbon fiber research was done to solve the problem of aircraft wing weight and strength. Thank you DoD for my carbon fibre mountain bike frame.
There must be a misunderstanding if you think I don't value my freedom, or I frown upon military research ^^
I think the B2 bomber is incredibly cool
I love the M1911A and all it's variants
I like the F14 fighter, and the modern replacements F22/23
All I ever said, and all I am fighting in this argument, is for the scientist to have the right to make a moral stand; to disagree with the government's use of his research *because* that is the very freedom that someone like you would die for.
Something I too would die for.
Just because you disagree with his stance does not make him wrong and you right, and that's *all* I've ever tried to argue here.
GPL Deconstructed
Are you saying we're NOT mighty? We're certainly superior when it comes to things like military power and the economy. If you're suggesting that we're not superior intellectually or morally, then you're entitled to your opinion, but you're still wrong.
Guns don't kill people -- people kill people.
But the guns seem to help a bit. (apologies to Eddie Izzard)
Guns don't kill people -- people kill people.
But the guns seem to help a bit. (apologies to Eddie Izzard)
I saw a study recently which stated your odds of dying if you were in one of the major wars of the 20th century. WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, etc. were all hovering around 1 in 15 (some were 1 in 10, others 1 in 13, but in most wars, out of you and 14 others, one of you was going to die).
In the 1990s Iraq war, the US casualty rate was 1 in 15,000. A marked improvement, and one that was solely due to our advanced technology.
I haven't seen statistics for the current war, but given that over 150 have died since the end of the war and that's more than died during the war, we can say 300 out of ~ 250,000 have died. That gives you a 0.12% chance of dying, which is more than the first Iraq war -- this is 1 in 833. (And gives me pause; perhaps the article I read had its statistics off some, since I would imagine there was less loss of US lives in the 2003 war.)
As far as global warming goes, bring it on! We're overdue for an ice age so we need to fight it as much as we possibly can. See Larry Niven's "Fallen Angels".
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
There are the really mean-spirited, rabid spider monkey varieties with laser beams strapped to their heads!
In all seriousness though, I think that the heart of the matter resides in what we construe to be definition of "military". If we decide that military means a force contingent similar to the land, sea, and air forces of the United States, then I agree that Costa Rica does not have a military. If, however, we define military as a potential or existing body of indivuals willing to defend their country then I believe that what Costa Rica has would be considered a minimal force contingent. The Coast Guard, and police forces could be tapped to serve in defense of country against the tyranny of the Spider Monkey Empire. My reasoning is because in the States (as that is my frame of reference) the police and military serve similar but different roles. Similar in defense of policy and consitutional liberties, yet different with respect to tactics and strategy to achieve those goals.
I believe that you are correct in saying that Costa Rica doesn't need a large standing military (large with respect to the size of Costa Rica)similar to what the U.S carries. Costa Rica doesn't possess the capacity to carry that sort of military. I think that it is a positive sign that Costa Rica can forgo such large military forces for the smaller police and border patrols. To me, it says that at least the state of the world is such that you can exist without such a military. Let's hope it continues that way.
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney and other neo-cons were pushing for a second invasion of Iraq ten years ago.
They weren't looking for political and social pressure points in Iraq, they weren't pushing for the country to be broken into three ethnocentric states (against the preferences of our "allies" in the region), they were pushing for war. And when they came to power, they got war.
There were a lot of non-invasion possibilities when W came into office. Most of them were still viable after September 11, 2001. But they wouldn't result in massive public works projects (rebuild Iraq) or military hardware purchases (resupply and expand the military). Scientists aren't alone in their addiction to Pentagon funding...
Non-violence as a preferred method of problem solving didn't start or end in the US during the 1960's. This moral position - non-violence is better than violence - has some well-known proponents (Jesus, Mohammed, Lao-Tzu, and so on) who were not involved in protesting the Vietnam war or the Clinton administration. The preference for non-violent conflict resolution is morally superior to the preference for violent conflict resolution.
By working for the Pentagon or a defense contracor, you might consider yourself neutral. You support people (the military services) who support policy made elsewhere. If you know that policy is immoral, you're knowingly contributing to that immoral position. If you know that policies are more likely to be immoral than moral, the position isn't that different.
As to building an effective defense - this isn't really a deterrent against suicidal fanatics. A 50%-more-bulletproof flak jacket or a 20%-more-accurate cruise missile is pretty irrelevant to someone blowing up a bridge or an embassy or [insert non-military target]. If there were a credible conventional or nuclear power threatening our security, your argument might make more sense.
Addressing the social/political/religious/economic problems which cause terrorism with military force and superior killing technology just doesn't make any sense. Violence begets violence. Hate begets hate. These are old concepts.
The idea that military force must be used to solve big problems is an unfounded assumption underpinning your argument. War doesn't have to happen. That's not idealism, it's just true. People committed to non-violence can do some amazing things.
-Don
You: Yes, I know, at least as long as the good old US of A continue their current foreign policy.
Bingo! I fished myself an anti-American anonymous coward. What are the chances? :)
USA has an unequaled record of military interventions abroad, between WWII and 9/11 they add up to 67 in total.
So what? In the first half of the 20th century there were two world wars. Since we've been intervening there hasn't been a single one.
And Germany caused more deaths in WWII than we have in all 67 engagements in the last 50 years.
Criticize the U.S. all you want, but I think it's fairly obvious that based on the record of the first and last half of the 20th century that U.S. intervention has saved lives, on balance, rather than cost them.
Your mileage will vary based on your degree of anti-Americanism, of course.
Of course many scientists are addicted to Pentagon cash. Where else will they get money to fund various research projects? Remember, the "Defense Industry" as we know it did not even exist until after World War II. It has now succeeded in squeezing out most other competing government initiatives. Why hasn't the government launched a major funding initiative to develop alternative energy sources? Why there's not enough money left over after the Pentagon submits its budget, of course. To parse an old phrase.. bad money chases out good money every time.
If you are a scientist, this whole story boils down to two things:
This is not new news, folks. We shouldn't be surprised at this; defense has been this country's biggest industry for the last sixty years. We shouldn't even be disappointed, because massive spending on defense gave us great inventions, like Tang and the Internet. But the US government's biggest payouts in the last fifty years have all been for defense. Think Star Wars, think DARPA-Net, think V-22 Osprey (and what it would mean to build them for passenger transport as well, assuming they fix those annoying crashing problems)... the list goes on and on.
in a sense, dual purpose and original intent go hand in hand. both campers and soldiers need socks that stay warm, dry, and minty-fresh smelling for weeks on end but the military is willing to pay a lot more for research and development on new socks than campers are. most products, themselves, are neutral and it's just the application that makes them military or non-military, so if a scientist turns to the military for help --even if the first generation product is tailored to military application-- if it has civilian uses and isn't directly killing people then the funding it gets wouldn't be "blood money" to most people i know.
a scientist who says "i think i can make more advanced socks so the world can be a better place" has to understand that his socks may wind up selling in both white and army green someday. with that in mind, he may decide to let the army pay for the development of the socks even though he plans to sell them to everyone. without the military sock money, those new socks may never come to pass.
"Mister Potato-head --MISTER POTATO-HEAD! Backdoors are not secrets!" (War Games, 1983)
What is the U.S. protecting, in the Western Hemisphere? Here are two classic examples suggesting the U.S. has merely been protecting corporate interests, and has little or no concern for the people of the countries it "protects."
_ re v.htm
If we take the example of Cuba (from the 60's), Fidel Castro led a revolt against inhumanly oppressive conditions. He earnestly expected the "land of the free" to rally to his cause. Instead he was villified, and his country was been branded a "U.S. enemy."
http://www.rcgfrfi.easynet.co.uk/ratb/cuba/cuba
In 1954 the U.S. overthrew the first freely elected governemnt in Guatemala, because that government forced United Fruit (A U.S. backed corporation), to relinquish some of its land to the country's poor (so they could farm).
http://www.mayaparadise.com/ufc1e.htm
There are many more examples than this.. they are just two Carribean/Central American examples that spring to mind fastest. If you're thinking: "Yes, but that was so long ago." Has it changed? Why did the U.S. reinstall a king/dictator in oil-rich Kuwait, after "liberating" it?
I'd really like to see it change.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
sorry that cuba link was broken - here it is: cuba
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
Japan does not have that kind of brutal racism any more. Japan is a modern Western nation, but it is a 2nd-class Western nation. Japan has many problems that currently prevent it from becoming a 1st-class Western nation like the United States of America (USA). An example of a problem is the fact that the government of Japan lacks the will to expel 300,000 North Koreans out of the country. These North Koreans refuse Japanese citizenship and smuggle money and military technology from Japan into North Korea. According to "Japan keeps N. Korea ferry at port", hundreds of North Korean residents in Japan recently stood at a ferry terminal and shouted, "Long live the glorious fatherland, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea."
The Japanese government needs to find in itself the spirit of American determination and justice to expel all North Korean residents from Japan. Further, the Japanese government should seek technical assistance from the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to send a commando force into North Korea to rescue the children of the Japanese who had been kidnapped and forcibly brought to North Korea more than a decade a go.
Westerners -- especially, Americans -- do not tolerate crap like that. A case in point is the assassination of Henry Liu. In 1984, the Taiwanese hired agents in the USA to murder an American citizen, Henry Liu. The Taiwanese government is the only foreign government to successfully murder an American citizen on American soil. The American government warned the Taiwanese government that Americans were prepared to retaliate against the Taiwanese unless the Taiwanese government arrested the mastermind behind the crime and sent him to prison. The Taiwanese government immediately obeyed the demands of the American government.
The Japanese government must deal with nonsense -- especially, dangerous nonsense -- in the American way. A good first step in this direction is building an impenetrable missile defense system and ignoring any complaints from the militaristic Chinese (which includes the Taiwanese and the Hong Kongers). A good second step is deporting the 300,000 North Koreans back to their fatherland, North Korea.
You fail on so many levels.
So what? In the first half of the 20th century there were two world wars. Since we've been intervening there hasn't been a single one.
All without any evidence of cause and effect! US Foreign policy really is amazing. Since that time million have died of AIDS. I think I'll attribute that as well.
And Germany caused more deaths in WWII than we have in all 67 engagements in the last 50 years.
Hey! Look over there! Something worse! So we're the good guys, just as long as we keep the killing in check a little. Brilliant.
You're a moron. But your milage may vary based on your amount of FAILURE.
Bad letxa2000, how dare you feed a troll.
Complete bullshit. "Preventing genocide" would have required action _before_ and not sending troops in _after_ the fact.
Having a functional govt, police force and education system in Rwanda _before_ the attacks took place would have _prevented_ genocidal acts.
But that would have required more money to be spent on foreign aid rather than on nukes, stealth bombers, cruise missiles etc.
And I second this sentiment.
While peace may be the absence of war, the absence of war is not peace.
That's a bit of a paraphrased quote, but I'm hoping it gets the point across.
I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!
Part of the reason that this happens is that the United States has an ideology that is essentially opposed to government-funded civilian research and development. Other than the DoD, the only large-scale government investments are for medicine and agriculture.
Yet it's very hard for corporations to track any benefits back to fundamental R&D work (and if you don't believe this, have a look at the recent collapse of virtually every large corporate R&D lab).
So, faut de mieux we call virtually all our R&D work "military." You can find this phenomenon elsewhere in the U.S. economy, too. Large airliner development is arguably not sustainable solely on corporate investment (Boeing barely managed to pull off the 777, and only by getting its suppliers to invest heavily). In Europe, the Airbus is directly subsidized by EU governments. In the U.S., Boeing is indirectly subsidized by large purchases of military aircraft.
Whether this perspective makes things worse or better, depends on how you look at it.
Where did we get the idea that it was our responsibility to intervene in the rest of the worlds problems with our military all the time?
When people come in with guns, odds are they will use them. 9 out of 10 times, the damage done in the end will be greater then if we used non-violent methods.
I shot Tupac!
Haha. You really don't get "prejudice," do you?
a judgment or opinion formed before the facts are known; preconceived idea, favorable or, more usually, unfavorable
a) a judgment or opinion held in disregard of facts that contradict it; unreasonable bias b) the holding of such judgments or opinions
suspicion, intolerance, or irrational hatred of other races, creeds, regions, occupations, etc.
Now, your statements about leftists and the Village Voice readership seem to be pretty well represented here. Good job!
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
But I can't help but realize how almost any computer automation technology from image recognition, voice recog, games using real-physics to model events, games pushing limits of 3D rendering to envision data in ways previously unimaginable
Will tech make visions worse than " 1984 " or They Live! possible? With ultra-right-wing, "terrorist-threat-using", non elected officials that have nothing to lose (like little chance of being re-elected or worse, with a 2nd term US president) how can almost all of our software efforts be turned against us -- one story talks about most workers being replaced by robots.This once was the utopian dream -- humans no longer having to work but having everything done for them by machines. The only thing that was left out of those utopian futures: how are resources distributed?
The current method of the US, capitalism, would have maybe 1 robot owning all wealth (who says capitalists can't be replaced by robots too?) -- would humans become a planetary liability, ala "The Matrix" or the "Terminator" movies?
Can someone please paint me a positive future -- negative futures are too easy. Child's work. How can we shape the future toward a positive outcome for us?
-lpq
To add to that, the government itself broadcast the names and addresses of would-be victims, using census data.
I read that many of the perpetrators wandered the streets with a machete in one hand, and a portable radio in the other.
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon