5 ms·

I just don't understand why you assume that the risks were not disclosed to the government. In my eyes, it's way more likely that the government decided to go a

by thomasz 11y ago

I just don't understand why you assume that the risks were not disclosed to the government. In my eyes, it's way more likely that the government decided to go ahead anyway. This was one of Saddam Hussein's prestige projects - telling him that it couldn't be done could've been fatal.

chris_wot 11y ago
If those firms knew if the extreme risks then they should have decided not to accept the work! I think it's pretty much a given that Sadaam Hussein, even back then, was a dictator who wouldn't necessarily put the safety of his people first.
- yiyus 11y ago
  I do not think that because he was a dictator he would not care at all. Probably, he did not want to destroy Mosul and all its people. And even if this did not worry him, taking into account that he was doing this for publicity (either internal or international), he would not have wanted the dam to fail and kill thousands of people.
  - ansible 11y ago
    Yes, if he wanted to kill all the people of Mosul, I'm sure there would have been a lot things that could have been done for much cheaper than building a dam, and maintaining it for 30 years. Bad does not equal stupid.
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  Iraq was relatively friendly with the US up until its invasion of Kuwait. We liked Saddam back when his main thing was fighting the Ayatollah.
metafunctor 11y ago
Isn't that a very good reason for not telling the truth to government?
- masklinn 11y ago
  Not really. That's a very good reason for going ahead when told to go ahead (instead of the ethical refusal to go through with the project).
- jerf 11y ago
  One possibility is that a lot of people did tell the truth to the government, but the government kept asking more questions until it got the answer it wanted. There's always somebody willing to be paid to do that, and it isn't necessarily an indictment against a profession that it doesn't have literally 100% compliance to some ethical standard, on the grounds that I don't tend to indict entire professional fields for failing to accomplish the literally impossible.
  - TallGuyShort 11y ago
    >> There's always somebody willing to be paid to do that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1m-AEWMRVo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1m-AEWMRVo
emodendroket 11y ago
While Saddam Hussein may not have been a friend of human rights I doubt he would have had European engineers killed for declining to work on his project.
- thomasz 11y ago
  He might have killed the people who reported to him, who in turn did everything to make that project happen, future cost and risk be damned.
  - kamaal 11y ago
    "To understand his tantrum one must understand the kinship he feels with the great men of history, with history itself. Lack of reverence for an image of Copernicus might suggest a lack of reverence for Saddam." From : http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/05/tales-of-the-tyrant/302480/?single_page=true http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/05/tales-of... Dictators are violent, not stupid. They understand risks, and make decisions like any other leader.
    - arethuza 11y ago
      Most dictators tend to behave in ways that doesn't exactly encourage their minions to be open and honest with them - the unhappy outcome of the 1937 Census in the Soviet Union being a good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_%281937%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_%281937%29 I think it would have been a foolishly courageous engineer who told Saddam that his dam project wasn't going to work...
      - kamaal 11y ago
        >>I think it would have been a foolishly courageous engineer who told Saddam that his dam project wasn't going to work... That isn't how it works. You don't just walk up to the dictator and troll him/her in the face about their project. You discuss engineering merits/demerits, risks/advantages make a brief conclusion and leave it there. You leave the decision to the them. Its a totally different thing for them to neglect all of that and continue with their will. But a good engineer would talk on the project's merit instead of talking about the dictators foolishness on the project.
ethbro 11y ago
So, crazy idea (and completely inapplicable here, because dictatorship). Is there any government in the word that has an empowered "science" branch of government as a check and balance? I'm not suggesting science is apolitical, but I feel like there's some merit to "We wanted to build a broken dam because {political considerations}, but the {science branch} vetoed it." Kind of like a Supreme Court, except informed by scientific knowledge rather than law.
- fiatmoney 11y ago
  In practice, the administrative agency apparatus works this way in the US. Projects go through things like environmental impact assessments, unless they're explicitly exempted. Of course, calling it a "science branch" is wildly optimistic; even theoretically objective assessments are skewed towards the favored result.
- MattyRad 11y ago
  That's an interesting thought. I believe the EPA, FDA, OSHA, etc, are supposed to be the quality control science branches of the government. But instead of preventative maintenance, they just dole out fines after some violation.
  - ethbro 11y ago
    The problem is that these organizations are headed by appointed politicians. And I've heard in the EPA at least there's an institutional boundaries between researchers (who do science) and administrators (who make decisions). I can try and dig up a citatation if you're interested, but my impression was scientists researchers were encouraged not to become involved in policy decisions.
- avivo 11y ago
  I wish! Though implementation would be tricky and might heavily politicize science in a bad way (as opposed to a good way; which could also happen). The closest I've seen anywhere to that is in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy. Here's an excerpt from the "Martian Constitution" in the accompanying book "The Martians": """All laws passed by the congress shall also be subject to review by the constitutional and environmental courts, and a veto by these courts cannot be overridden, but shall be grounds for rewriting the law if the congress sees fit, after which the process of passing the law shall begin again.""" I found the rest here: http://pastebin.com/YeR74Yyb http://pastebin.com/YeR74Yyb

by thomasz 11y ago

chris_wot 11y ago

If those firms knew if the extreme risks then they should have decided not to accept the work! I think it's pretty much a given that Sadaam Hussein, even back then, was a dictator who wouldn't necessarily put the safety of his people first.

yiyus 11y ago
I do not think that because he was a dictator he would not care at all. Probably, he did not want to destroy Mosul and all its people. And even if this did not worry him, taking into account that he was doing this for publicity (either internal or international), he would not have wanted the dam to fail and kill thousands of people.
- ansible 11y ago
  Yes, if he wanted to kill all the people of Mosul, I'm sure there would have been a lot things that could have been done for much cheaper than building a dam, and maintaining it for 30 years. Bad does not equal stupid.
cookiecaper 11y ago
Iraq was relatively friendly with the US up until its invasion of Kuwait. We liked Saddam back when his main thing was fighting the Ayatollah.

metafunctor 11y ago

Isn't that a very good reason for not telling the truth to government?

masklinn 11y ago
Not really. That's a very good reason for going ahead when told to go ahead (instead of the ethical refusal to go through with the project).
jerf 11y ago
One possibility is that a lot of people did tell the truth to the government, but the government kept asking more questions until it got the answer it wanted. There's always somebody willing to be paid to do that, and it isn't necessarily an indictment against a profession that it doesn't have literally 100% compliance to some ethical standard, on the grounds that I don't tend to indict entire professional fields for failing to accomplish the literally impossible.
- TallGuyShort 11y ago
  >> There's always somebody willing to be paid to do that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1m-AEWMRVo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1m-AEWMRVo

emodendroket 11y ago

While Saddam Hussein may not have been a friend of human rights I doubt he would have had European engineers killed for declining to work on his project.

thomasz 11y ago
He might have killed the people who reported to him, who in turn did everything to make that project happen, future cost and risk be damned.
- kamaal 11y ago
  "To understand his tantrum one must understand the kinship he feels with the great men of history, with history itself. Lack of reverence for an image of Copernicus might suggest a lack of reverence for Saddam." From : http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/05/tales-of-the-tyrant/302480/?single_page=true http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/05/tales-of... Dictators are violent, not stupid. They understand risks, and make decisions like any other leader.
  - arethuza 11y ago
    Most dictators tend to behave in ways that doesn't exactly encourage their minions to be open and honest with them - the unhappy outcome of the 1937 Census in the Soviet Union being a good example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_%281937%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_%281937%29 I think it would have been a foolishly courageous engineer who told Saddam that his dam project wasn't going to work...
    - kamaal 11y ago
      >>I think it would have been a foolishly courageous engineer who told Saddam that his dam project wasn't going to work... That isn't how it works. You don't just walk up to the dictator and troll him/her in the face about their project. You discuss engineering merits/demerits, risks/advantages make a brief conclusion and leave it there. You leave the decision to the them. Its a totally different thing for them to neglect all of that and continue with their will. But a good engineer would talk on the project's merit instead of talking about the dictators foolishness on the project.

ethbro 11y ago

So, crazy idea (and completely inapplicable here, because dictatorship). Is there any government in the word that has an empowered "science" branch of government as a check and balance? I'm not suggesting science is apolitical, but I feel like there's some merit to "We wanted to build a broken dam because {political considerations}, but the {science branch} vetoed it." Kind of like a Supreme Court, except informed by scientific knowledge rather than law.

fiatmoney 11y ago
In practice, the administrative agency apparatus works this way in the US. Projects go through things like environmental impact assessments, unless they're explicitly exempted. Of course, calling it a "science branch" is wildly optimistic; even theoretically objective assessments are skewed towards the favored result.
MattyRad 11y ago
That's an interesting thought. I believe the EPA, FDA, OSHA, etc, are supposed to be the quality control science branches of the government. But instead of preventative maintenance, they just dole out fines after some violation.
- ethbro 11y ago
  The problem is that these organizations are headed by appointed politicians. And I've heard in the EPA at least there's an institutional boundaries between researchers (who do science) and administrators (who make decisions). I can try and dig up a citatation if you're interested, but my impression was scientists researchers were encouraged not to become involved in policy decisions.
avivo 11y ago
I wish! Though implementation would be tricky and might heavily politicize science in a bad way (as opposed to a good way; which could also happen). The closest I've seen anywhere to that is in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy. Here's an excerpt from the "Martian Constitution" in the accompanying book "The Martians": """All laws passed by the congress shall also be subject to review by the constitutional and environmental courts, and a veto by these courts cannot be overridden, but shall be grounds for rewriting the law if the congress sees fit, after which the process of passing the law shall begin again.""" I found the rest here: http://pastebin.com/YeR74Yyb http://pastebin.com/YeR74Yyb