Here's and article that I had receieved in the mail about Scientists and their contributions to destruction and waste:
Scientists of the world unite!
'All this leads to a more important point, something which can be done, i think, and ought to be undertaken. Namely, an attempt to organize scientists to refuse military work. Its remarkable that this has really not been undertaken so far. It's beginning to get off the ground. If you look at the front page of today's NY TIMES, you'll see an example. Consider something like the ABM [Antiballiistic misslie system.] Most scientists know perfectly well that the ABM is a catastrophe. But its fairly predictable that after they finished explaining its irrationality nature. They can refuse. They can refuse, not only individually, which would be all right, but they can refuse collectively. The point is that lectures on the ABM are irrelevant if, in fact, the ABM is not motivated by a search for security but very good grounds for believing that that is exactly what it is motivated by. I think that if scientists were to organize to refuse work on the ABM, they would be very educational. If I'm wrong and they stopped it, so much the better course.'
I was just wondering if it is possible that scientists are going too far in creating missiles and bombs and are servants to the military and government.
quote:
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo- H.G Wells
The thing of it is - weapons in some form or other will always be in use. Whether it's scientists from the community as you know it, or specialists trained within the military system. I wouldn't think that scientists just wake up one day and figure, "well.. I may as well work on missles since that's where the big bucks are." If anything the appeal would be:
1) Weapons research makes up among the most advanced, cutting-edge sceintific research in the world. What could be more attractive to a technophile than an opportunity to get in amongst an elite group with the authority to develop out research that others are restricted from?
2) The creation of smarter, more accurate, more directed weapons will minimze civilian casualties. I find this to be a strong underlying theme in many weapons development programs I read about these days where bombs are designed to take out single buildings without damage to those surrounding it, etc. You don't hear much about bigger, badder nuclear testing, etc out of the U.S. anymore..
3) As our nation does and will continue to engage in military operations with the use of force around the world under the banner of freedom and protection, it is our duty to ensure that our troops are as well-equipped as possible to out-perform, out-maneuver, out-fire-power the enemy in order to ensure our nation's goals are met. It's one matter to challenge our nations goals on an international level, but it's another matter to ensure that those goals we do make are as achievable as possible under the assumption that those goals are indeed for the greater good.
I'm not in favor of everything this country does, but I'm in favor of this. Sometimes force is just, plain necessary.
[QUOTE]Sean Kelly said this in post #2 :
I wouldn't think that scientists just wake up one day and figure, "well.. I may as well work on missiles since that's where the big bucks are.'
Some scientists do the work because they love to make nuclear missiles or some sadly leave the profession because they did go into making missiles for the money. Whatever the reason, my point is that scientists have come together recently to refuse military work that they find will never work or be catastrophes and i think that, that is substantial improvement in the scientific community as from years before. I have read your reply in my computer class and I agree that missiles must be made in times of war but I am confused about how we can afford the costs of making these missile especially now when are trying desperately to curb the government's spending. Is it necessary?
Sean Kelly said this in post #2 : The thing of it is - weapons in some form or other will always be in use. Whether it's scientists from the community as you know it, or specialists trained within the military system. I wouldn't think that scientists just wake up one day and figure, "well.. I may as well work on missles since that's where the big bucks are." If anything the appeal would be:
1) Weapons research makes up among the most advanced, cutting-edge sceintific research in the world. What could be more attractive to a technophile than an opportunity to get in amongst an elite group with the authority to develop out research that others are restricted from?
2) The creation of smarter, more accurate, more directed weapons will minimze civilian casualties. I find this to be a strong underlying theme in many weapons development programs I read about these days where bombs are designed to take out single buildings without damage to those surrounding it, etc. You don't hear much about bigger, badder nuclear testing, etc out of the U.S. anymore..
3) As our nation does and will continue to engage in military operations with the use of force around the world under the banner of freedom and protection, it is our duty to ensure that our troops are as well-equipped as possible to out-perform, out-maneuver, out-fire-power the enemy in order to ensure our nation's goals are met. It's one matter to challenge our nations goals on an international level, but it's another matter to ensure that those goals we do make are as achievable as possible under the assumption that those goals are indeed for the greater good.
I'm not in favor of everything this country does, but I'm in favor of this. Sometimes force is just, plain necessary.
10-10-2004 02:51 AM
