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,
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.
..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!
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
And not just money, but people want job security. Let's face it, you're much "safer" working for the government, or a large government contractor than working in a competitive industry. As an engineer looking for new employment right now, the majority of the companies that are still hiring are government defense contractors. Even if the pay might be a little less, right now that is the best option for a lot of specialized people.
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 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.
"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.
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....
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.-=-
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... ***
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
Firstly, technology is rarely single use, only for the military. Average citizens drive frickin' Hummvees down highway streets, for crying out loud.
Secondly, since when is it unethical for a scientist to aid the military? The world is not a nice place, and if we accept that a military is necessary, then why not have the best damn military in the world?
Thirdly, guess what, posting messages to Slashdot is using technology developed with military grants -- a hell of a lot of communication research is done with military money. Shock, horror.
Signed, a telecommunication scientist who once served in the military.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
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 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.
Simple. Both Iraq and North Korea have signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. The USA has also signed, which binds it to make progress towards giving up nuclear weapons on an unspecified time table.
Israel, India, Pakistan, and some other countries have not signed.
So as a matter of International law, Iraq's nuclear program (which they did have in the past) and North Korea's were illegal. I believe NK has since withdrawn from the NNPT. There is a timetable for doing that, so I don't know if, by continuing to develop nuclear weapons, they are still in violation.
The people most likely to use their WOMD for terrorism are the US-Israeli people.
That'll be a surprise to those attacked on the Tokyo subway with sarin. (We've already seen terrorists use chemical weapons).
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
if we accept that a military is necessary,
I don't think that everyone accepts that to the same degree (or necessarily at all). Some people want a smaller military, some people want a larger one, some want none at all. Other people may have other ideas about how the military should be used.
If your convictions include not supporting a particular thing, then not doing it is hou you keep from being a hypocrite. I'll be accused of pandering to the moderators for this next part, but it's just how I feel. I wouldn't take a job at Microsoft because I don't want to support them. I don't like many of their business practices. I don't like most of their software. I wouldn't do work on a grant that would help them further degrade the computer industry. However, if there was an MS funded grant for studying the use of computers to fight viruses (human viruses, not computer ones), then I might want to work on that. It's all about adhering your principles.
t'nera semordnilap
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.
Greed and fear are great motivators, isn't it nice that we were able to develop satellites and send people to the moon thanks to buzzbombs? Or that we're able to have this discussion at all on the internet thanks to the military? Hey, let's look at basic metallurgy and materials - no contribution from the world of war there I guess. I'm not even sure if it's the "American" way - it's all human nature. Nothing gets people off their asses like money and power.
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.
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.
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
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.
There is no other use for a Stealth bomber, but the Stealth bomber isn't itself "technology" any more than a Compaq computer is "technology." It's made up of lots and lots of internal technology, and that's what's dual use. I'll bet you anything that quite a bit of technology used in and to build the Stealth bomber also has civilian applications.
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
Seems there would be a lot of practicle uses for electromagnetic scattering, computer aided design, fly-by-wire controls, and who knows, perhaps even tail-less aircraft in the civilian sector. The B-2, as a finished product, certainly doesn't have civilian applications, but the technology and processes developed to build it (and its sister craft, the F1-117A) certainly does.
I for one would like to not have a military, but then we're left with the problem of gaining a reliable ally that has a very strong one.
common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
You are a moron. You think Costa Rica has anything anyone wants? I suggest you tell Osama and the rest of his mideval thinking extremist that they will laugh in your fack and kill you for being alive and non muslim. Asshat.
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)
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.
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.
I guess that depends on your interpretation of nice. Some would say that the world is not a nice place because we are not a nice country. The military defends our economic interests - if you believe those economic interests are always righteous and moral, then working for the military is moral. If you believe that the use of the military is mostly moral with the occasional screw up, then it would still probably be OK to work for the military.
But if you believe that history shows a greedy human race with the blood of innocents on our hands, that in spite of the politicians' cries of "Its a Shiny New Post-WWII, Post-Cold War World and we all really want World Peace," we continue to be greedy and war-mongering and that modern use of the military continues to be used in exactly the same way it has been used for the last several millenia, then the morality of working for the military is, at best, ambiguous.
"It's Dot Com!"
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"
To live in blatant ignorance of reality, or to propose ways of changing an unpleasant state of affairs that are completely at odds with reality, is the province of childhood. I am not against idealism per se, but an idealism that is ineffective in the world is useless, or even worse than useless, as it can seduce people into unwise behavior.
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.
Well, that's exactly what we are, including you. That humans are equally as capable of, and prone to, evil as good is a well documented fact and thumbing your nose at the military will not make that go away. That you can hold these beliefs and publically proclaim them without fear of being imprisoned or murdered you owe, ironically, to the very military you despise. As Orwell said, "pacifism is possible only in countries that possess strong navies."
The adult thing to do, faced with this, at a minimum is to realize that to have a society where people can live in relative peace and with some measure of dignity, militaries are necessary, and to at least show some appreciation for this, given the alternatives. To wish anyway for an abolishment of the military because violence offends you is the mark of a petulant child, not to mention a selfish indulgence considering the ramifications for the 270 or so million other people who would be without protection.
You and he refuse to face up to the world as it is and instead you advocate policies with no hope of changing things for the better. The only criterion you have it seems is what makes you feel good, not what is realistically best. That is not idealism, that is immaturity.
I know this because Tyler knows this.
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.
The linking of patriotism with "having the most advanced weapons" says a lot.
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.
I for one would like to not have a military, but then we're left with the problem of gaining a reliable ally that has a very strong one.
Ah, that's Japan's solution to the problem. Maybe we should use their reliable ally.
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.
Yes that's exactly what the US does.
Hands guns to anyone who wants them - you can buy them from K-Mart.
And it also hands bigger weapons, even WOMD to Israel - a country which has been breaking UN resolutions since the UN was founded.
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.
Your country isn't so great if you'll end up fighting war after war because the rest of the planet hates you.
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.