4 ms·

I mean, it's not like they're going into it knowing they're about to create a nerve agent. It even says in the history for Tabun on Wikipedia [0] that it was in

I mean, it's not like they're going into it knowing they're about to create a nerve agent. It even says in the history for Tabun on Wikipedia [0] that it was initially meant to be an insecticide. Sarin was similarly created as a way to find stronger pesticides, and IIRC so was Zyklon B, used in the holocaust. So some of these scientists may not have known what their creations were going to be used for. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabun_(nerve_agent) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabun_(nerve_agent)

jacquesm 10y ago
After making a demonstration to the army and being set up with a lab by the army and being asked specifically to weaponize your research (and fill projectiles with it) I don't think there should be any 'we didn't know' excuses. It's pretty clear that even if insecticide was the beginning there was a pretty clear point in time where it was obvious that this had nothing to do with insects any longer.
- mynameisvlad 10y ago
  And at that point what are they going to do? Say no? Okay, then they'll get someone else to take your work and weaponize it. The bulk of the work would have already been done by then, which is synthesizing the chemical and showing its effects on people.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Principles are pointless if there is no price to pay. By your reasoning you can excuse away any behavior. Which of course plenty of scientists and other horrible people tried to do. And then there was the collective amnesia epidemic of 1945.
    - mynameisvlad 10y ago
      And by your reasoning, you should get locked away the second your research can get weaponized. Shockingly, it's not a black and white world with many layers of gray in between, which is what I was trying to show. That a lot of research can get twisted for evil. In your earlier post, you claimed there was "no upside". That's patently false, since these started with the ideal of getting rid of pests more efficiently. Yes, there's a point where it turns from this generic research to weaponizing, but that might not be immediately obvious at the time, nor what the repercussions might be 50 years later.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        > And by your reasoning, you should get locked away the second your research can get weaponized. No, the second people start weaponizing your research you have the option to stop participating. > Shockingly, it's not a black and white world with many layers of gray in between, which is what I was trying to show. That a lot of research can get twisted for evil. Chemical weapons research is pure evil, I don't doubt that at all. > In your earlier post, you claimed there was "no upside". Yep. > That's patently false, since these started with the ideal of getting rid of pests more efficiently. Yes, there's a point where it turns from this generic research to weaponizing, but that might not be immediately obvious at the time, nor what the repercussions might be 50 years later. It was obvious within the lifetime of the scientists involved because they were the ones to help weaponize it. And for that there are no excuses. I really don't understand why you're twisting so much to come up with excuses for these people here, their role and position in all this is pretty well documented. If not for the Germans fear that allies would be able to retaliate in kind that stuff would have been used. This is one of the best documented era in the history of mankind, there are people who deserve the benefit of the doubt but this particular group isn't one of those.
        TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
        > No, the second people start weaponizing your research you have the option to stop participating. I want to agree with this, but I'm not certain how I would act if I knew my options where a) continue weaponisation research or b) get shot in the face.
        jacquesm 10y ago
        Let's hope you never find out.
        semi-extrinsic 10y ago
        Crucially, option b) is actually "get shot in the face and then someone else weaponises the research". Making a principled stand is only useful when it stands a non-zero chance of accomplishing something.

jacquesm 10y ago

After making a demonstration to the army and being set up with a lab by the army and being asked specifically to weaponize your research (and fill projectiles with it) I don't think there should be any 'we didn't know' excuses. It's pretty clear that even if insecticide was the beginning there was a pretty clear point in time where it was obvious that this had nothing to do with insects any longer.

mynameisvlad 10y ago
And at that point what are they going to do? Say no? Okay, then they'll get someone else to take your work and weaponize it. The bulk of the work would have already been done by then, which is synthesizing the chemical and showing its effects on people.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Principles are pointless if there is no price to pay. By your reasoning you can excuse away any behavior. Which of course plenty of scientists and other horrible people tried to do. And then there was the collective amnesia epidemic of 1945.
  - mynameisvlad 10y ago
    And by your reasoning, you should get locked away the second your research can get weaponized. Shockingly, it's not a black and white world with many layers of gray in between, which is what I was trying to show. That a lot of research can get twisted for evil. In your earlier post, you claimed there was "no upside". That's patently false, since these started with the ideal of getting rid of pests more efficiently. Yes, there's a point where it turns from this generic research to weaponizing, but that might not be immediately obvious at the time, nor what the repercussions might be 50 years later.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      > And by your reasoning, you should get locked away the second your research can get weaponized. No, the second people start weaponizing your research you have the option to stop participating. > Shockingly, it's not a black and white world with many layers of gray in between, which is what I was trying to show. That a lot of research can get twisted for evil. Chemical weapons research is pure evil, I don't doubt that at all. > In your earlier post, you claimed there was "no upside". Yep. > That's patently false, since these started with the ideal of getting rid of pests more efficiently. Yes, there's a point where it turns from this generic research to weaponizing, but that might not be immediately obvious at the time, nor what the repercussions might be 50 years later. It was obvious within the lifetime of the scientists involved because they were the ones to help weaponize it. And for that there are no excuses. I really don't understand why you're twisting so much to come up with excuses for these people here, their role and position in all this is pretty well documented. If not for the Germans fear that allies would be able to retaliate in kind that stuff would have been used. This is one of the best documented era in the history of mankind, there are people who deserve the benefit of the doubt but this particular group isn't one of those.
      - TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
        > No, the second people start weaponizing your research you have the option to stop participating. I want to agree with this, but I'm not certain how I would act if I knew my options where a) continue weaponisation research or b) get shot in the face.
        jacquesm 10y ago
        Let's hope you never find out.
        semi-extrinsic 10y ago
        Crucially, option b) is actually "get shot in the face and then someone else weaponises the research". Making a principled stand is only useful when it stands a non-zero chance of accomplishing something.