Caltrops - Biohazard: Code Veronica





	[quote name="Senor Barborito MetaFilter Post"]You have, unfortunately, setup a major strawman and proceeded to burn it to a crisp. Let's take a look at what I've actually said over the course of this thread:<br /> <br /> 1. I said that these new weapons were not significantly more 'frightening' than existing weapons. sysinfo's link to the 2003 analysis of the practicality of space-based weapons systems bears this out.<br /> <br /> 2. I said that the development of next-generation weapons was inevitable due to international competition for a strategic advantage, and that there was no particular reason for America not to develop them first, outside of the madmen running our government. <b>At no point did I ever suggest that developing these weapons was a good thing or a useful expenditure of taxpayer dollars</b>.<br /> <br /> 3. I said that the situation could have been significantly worse - placing NBCs in orbit where a satellite failure and uncontrolled reentry could have horrifying consequences (widely dispersed plague, atmospheric irradiation). Tungsten rods are, relatively speaking, harmless in comparison (see sysinfo's link).<br /> <br /> 4. I said that there was no significant difference between the impersonal nature of entering coordinates and firing artillery, and the impersonal nature of entering coordinates and deorbiting tungsten rods.<br /> <br /> 5. I pointed out that three nations with the necessary resources to begin development of these and other next-generation weapons had significant interest in obtaining strategic advantages over neighboring countries, even if they could be trusted not to pursue such for their next few administrations. I also pointed out that given the pace of world development that in another fifty years even the poorest of nations may be able to consider developing these weapons. In support of this I pointed out that the number of countries with nuclear capability had doubled since the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was established.<br /> <br /> 6. I said that despite my wishes that humanity would mature a little, it was unlikely to happen anytime soon and in light of this falling behind in the arms race could be extremely dangerous. That our leaders set us on this path and we were bound to it due to their short-sightedness. That given the genetically-ingrained tendency towards tribalism, we might very well destroy ourselves.<br /> <br /> 7. Finally, in response to you I pointed out that we had computerized death machines flying overhead already, flown by even more unreliable humans. That killing has been densensitized for a long time now. That for the people who were responsible for making the <i>decisions</i> warfare has always been impersonal and without risk - and there is no need to psychologically damage those who are often forced into carrying out their wishes.<br /> <br /> <i>Oh yes, because there's no difference between a mostly mechanical jet that isn't prone to being hacked and an orbital death machine that is designed to be controlled by wireless transmissions that can drop nuclear-equivalent blasts all over the globe. Much like a knife and afore-mentioned orbital death machine are really the same things as well.</i><br /> <br /> 'Mostly mechanical' jets, or rather their larger counterparts (bombers) can and do carry nuclear weapons capable of obliterating cities. I'd say that the reliability of nuclear submarine captains, missle silo commanders, nuclear bomber pilots and most <i>especially</i> our beloved president are the weak link in the chain, not encryption algorithms that have withstood the best efforts of two generations of the world's finest mathematicians and cryptologists. Secondly, see sysinfo's link - the space-based weapons, at least, are nowhere even near existing nuclear weapons in power.<br /> <br /> The weapons and the security of their triggering mechanisms are not the problem - the people controlling them are and always have been, and space-borne weapons for specialized purposes will do little to add to their ability to cause destruction on an apocalyptic scale. Even if that were the goal of these systems, which it is not.<br /> <br /> <i>Again, it's a matter of scale. I won't argue with you that things went too far a while ago.</i><br /> <br /> It is indeed a matter of scale - but one of time. Combat wasn't just impersonal during World War 2, it was impersonal when the Basilic pounded the walls of Constantinople with cannonfire in 1453.<br /> <br /> There's no going back from here.<br /> <br /> <i>Frankly this is why I have issues with hand-guns. Too god-damned easy to kill someone. Fists and knives take so much more in the way of guts or being disturbed, I think we'd have a lot less in the way of murder going on if it was honestly a tougher and more personal issue.</i><br /> <br /> You'd be wrong, then. <a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm">Gun homicides have dropped from 8,000 per year to 5,000 since 1995. Knife homicides have remained steadily at 2,500 in that time</a>. The tougher and more personal method has remained constant while the 'easy' method has dropped nearly forty percent. I will say, however, that handguns and SMGs are easily concealed and carried where rifles, shotguns, and assault rifles are not, so there's something to be said for attempting to keep them off the streets (while noting that violent crime in the UK has skyrocketed since most firearms were outlawed there).<br /> <br /> <i>But just because we've had anti-aircraft guns fired by a guy in a little room, that doesn't somehow equate to it being great to waste hundreds of billions of dollars more that we've already wasted on machines that will certainly increase the risk of massive damage dramatically. It's like the asinine decision to pursue tactical nukes. Tactical fucking nukes. "Bunker Busters". Yee-fucking-ha, go cowboy! We're worried about nuclear proliferation, so the answer, obviously, is to inject much more usable nukes into the world. The logic of these fucking cowboys (and I'd recommend going back and reading the quotes in the article from the air-force general... he's like a character out of Dr. Strangelove with his talk about American destiny) does in fact sicken me.</i><br /> <br /> You do a disservice to any valid points you might make by blanketly ascribing irrationality to those you disagree with, and describing them as caricatures rather than confronting their actual words and finding fault with their actual reasoning. Knee-jerk reactionary attitudes make you look bad, not them, and since what you want is what I want in the final measure, I'd prefer you didn't.<br /> <br /> In any case, see my second point above: I agree that developing next-generation weapons is economically a waste, but given that some nation eventually developing them is just shy of inevitable it would be a mistake to not have parity <i>especially</i> given the rest of the world's feelings towards the United States. This money is sadly wasted, but we're stuck on this path thanks to the colossal stupidity of the Bush administration and as with impersonal combat there is no going back now.<br /> <br /> <i>I do not in any way, shape or form want to make it easier for people to engage in the mass slaughter of other people. You go ahead and color it any way you like. I don't care if they are a mass of starving orphans. That in no way makes it a 'good' thing to make either conscious or accidental nuclear-equicalent blasts from space a desirable or even an acceptable development. I'm sorry you feel differently. I'm very sorry that that is your reality.</i><br /> <br /> I would challenge you to find where I said that I wanted to make it easier for people to kill other people - I am, as I said, a liberal pacifist. I said that I wanted humanity to grow up, rather than flush money down the spiral of the arms race. But humanity growing up is not an option, and our leaders throughout human history have never demonstrated the ability to behave like adults at the macroscopic level. Because of those leaders who rarely experience war as anything other than impersonal decisions they make in a comfortable office we are trapped in our current situation - and all the chest-beating in the world won't change this fact.<br /> <br /> Failing humanity growing up or spending money on anything worthwhile, I would prefer not to die. There is a world of difference between 'desirable,' 'acceptable,' and 'necessary due to inevitability.'<br /> <br /> <i>The critical flaw is that there is no proof that these things have to happen. They only have to happen if they are allowed (or encouraged, as the case may be) to happen. Bullshit mantras about manifest-space-destiny while we trash our own treaties to keep space from being militarized. It's nothing but a demented failure of ethics, will and human preservation that is really all about greed. Hundreds of billions blown on missile defense that we already knew was a no-go? I got it... we and our Defense Dept. buddies can cash on several new systems that will cost even more over the next ten years.</i><br /> <br /> You can't prove an untestable hypothesis, period. What you can do in this case is look at every historical prescedent and draw conclusions. The history of nuclear weapons has some very, very direct parallels to the current situation, and I think you know what conclusions those parallels indicate. Manifest-space-destiny mantras are, I agree, bullshit. But just because someone is wrong about statement A does not automatically mean that they are wrong about statement B. You were flat-out wrong about knife and blunt object crime decreasing, but there were a couple points above where you were right and I said so. Just because one general has his head up his ass does not render his basic assertion - that we will eventually have to develop these weapons if for no other reason than parity - somehow magically false.<br /> <br /> The money is wasted, but our administration has backed us into a corner on this and many, many other critical issues due to their inability to make sound decisions on nearly any topic.<br /> <br /> <i>The armed response paradigm is losing us our current war. They money could be far better invested in things like collecting the loose nuclear material from former Soviet bloc countries, to adequate education, food and shelter for the world's poor. To developing real democracies that don't churn out hordes of raging, anti-American fanatics in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, the Philippines and now, woo Demecracy!, Uzbekistan. To developing real energy policies that de-link foreign policy from quick-sand and flash-fires. I'm not talking pie-in-the-sky, here, I'm talking reality.</i><br /> <br /> You apparently fail to grasp that there is a difference between escalation and contingency planning. The money could and should be better spent, but that option is - in any realistic assessment of the facts at hand - now beyond us. I agree that educating the world's power is an important task, but disagree with feeding and sheltering them. One of the many factors driving our current geopolitical situation - of which space-borne weapon systems are a result - is our ongoing population explosion. Food and shelter increase birthrates. Education and birth control reduce them. You say you want to talk reality - is it better that one billion die of starvation now or fifteen billion die choking on a poisonous atmosphere in a century?<br /> <br /> Our foreign policy is an abortion, but even a complete reversal of course won't undo the damage for decades. <br /> <br /> Our hands have been tied by our leaders, and the best we can hope for now is to ensure our survival.<br> posted by Ryvar at 9:14 AM PST[/quote]