4 ms·

Edward Snowden had predicted a radicalization of a class of professionals. We're coming to the point where, similarly to nuclear physicists after Hiroshima, we

Edward Snowden had predicted a radicalization of a class of professionals. We're coming to the point where, similarly to nuclear physicists after Hiroshima, we decide as a community to not let our skills be used for unethical purposes.

briandear 12y ago
One could argue that those skills actually prevent far worse unethical actions. Without Hiroshima, how might World War II have ended? How would the Chinese and Koreans feel if Japan weren't defeated? Spend a few minutes at the Nanking museum or perhaps read about Bataan or Korean comfort women and then the moral high ground gets a bit slippery. One might, if one were so inclined, make an argument that nuclear weapons prevented World War III due to the mutually assured destruction concept. The Cold War would have become very hot if the politicians of both the Soviet Union and the U.S. didn't have to fear for their own annihilation. War and politics is dirty and not as academic as many people would like to think. It never is black and white. For example, if we take the moral high ground, our enemies won't. Pacifism sounds good until it's your sister getting raped in your living room or your parents being shot out of the sky.
- robot22 12y ago
  Privacy is not just a moral good but necessary to for society to survive and thrive in the long-run. Countries and governments frequently do not act in their own best interest and I view mass surveillance as one of these instances.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- joshuapants 12y ago
  For an interesting perspective on this, take a look at The Fog of War with Robert S. McNamara. He contrasts the firebombing of Tokyo with the use of nuclear weapons, among a variety of other topics.
- bediger4000 12y ago
  People have made very good arguments that the atomic bombs didn't cause Japan to surrender: http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japa... Like you say, it's arguable, but it's arguable both ways. That's what makes working on atomic weapons such a morally questionable enterprise.
- pluma 12y ago
  The theory that Japan wouldn't have been defeated without the Bomb is contended, at best. A far more likely outcome would have been A) the Soviets invading Japan (leading to Japan surrendering to the Allies to maintain their territorial integrity) or B) massive depopulation as a result of the ongoing firebombing. Basically, they'd either have surrendered, or become mostly irrelevant (like North Korea if it weren't for China). Yes, Japan committed atrocities in WW2, but the US wasn't the Good Guy either. There are no good guys in war. It's all just propaganda. And the thing with propaganda is that in order to claim any moral high ground after the war you have to abandon your propaganda and deal with the facts. The US never did that. Instead it dragged itself from one war to the next while pretending to be at peace. The US is at war. It has been for a long time. Only it has outgrown the need of having an enemy. There's probably a clever 1984 reference in here. The US has become a servant to its warfare, sustaining a state of war perpetually, moving from one "enemy" to the next, churning out propaganda for itself and for its allies. Except the propaganda has shaped its culture so much its citizens not only barely notice it anymore, they unknowingly perpetuate it themselves. And our advancements in technology allow the warfare itself to become less and less noticeable to them, too. Instead of scared men in tanks, we are demanding casual suits behind joysticks -- because it makes the warfare so much cleaner and easier, for us. The US isn't a mighty eagle. It's quickly becoming a scared canary in a cage, pecking at buttons to make the scary people go away.
  - nostrademons 12y ago
    I think you're proving his point, which IIUC wasn't that the Bomb was necessary to end WW2, it was that there are differing opinions on whether the Bomb was necessary to end WW2. The U.S. has always been highly morally questionable - after all, it's one of a few nations founded by a successful genocidal campaign, which we called Manifest Destiny. The perks of being successful with genocide is that you get to define the story as you wish, since there's nobody to call you out on it. We're not the only country in that boat either, as I think the grandparent post was trying to point out. Japan, if left unchecked, would've happily raped and pillaged all of Korea - they were well on their way already. Russia was just waiting to come in and crush Japan, payback for the Russo-Japanese war 40 years earlier. Germany, of course, started to war in an attempt to exterminate the Jews.
- pluma 12y ago
  Vigilantism sounds good until you realize you're a rapist.
dataker 12y ago
It's really hard to predict how our skills and projects will be used. Whether nuclear energy or a surveillance system, it might be primarily amazing and then be used for unethical purposes. Instead, the technical community should demand more transparency and control over the applications of their technologies.
afarrell 12y ago
Did that really happen after Hiroshima? How did the U.S. Nuclear arsenal get built?
- convivialdingo 12y ago
  Yup... Check out fas.org FAS was founded in 1945 by many of the Manhattan Project scientists who wanted to prevent nuclear war and is one of the longest serving organizations in the world dedicated to reducing nuclear threats and informing the public debate by providing technically-based research and analysis on these issues.
knorby 12y ago
Well, one of the most early ethical battles of Manhattan project nuclear physicists was questioning if the H-bomb should be built, and how did that turn out? The US ended up building a massive nuclear arsenal, well beyond any limit of absurd necessity or reason. The NSA only has a hiring crisis because they are attempting to scale in similar ways. Hopefully there is a turn in ethics, but that isn't a solution.
LLWM 12y ago
Ethics is subjective. We've already seen the same thing happen with people deciding non-free software is unethical.

briandear 12y ago

One could argue that those skills actually prevent far worse unethical actions. Without Hiroshima, how might World War II have ended? How would the Chinese and Koreans feel if Japan weren't defeated? Spend a few minutes at the Nanking museum or perhaps read about Bataan or Korean comfort women and then the moral high ground gets a bit slippery. One might, if one were so inclined, make an argument that nuclear weapons prevented World War III due to the mutually assured destruction concept. The Cold War would have become very hot if the politicians of both the Soviet Union and the U.S. didn't have to fear for their own annihilation. War and politics is dirty and not as academic as many people would like to think. It never is black and white. For example, if we take the moral high ground, our enemies won't. Pacifism sounds good until it's your sister getting raped in your living room or your parents being shot out of the sky.

robot22 12y ago
Privacy is not just a moral good but necessary to for society to survive and thrive in the long-run. Countries and governments frequently do not act in their own best interest and I view mass surveillance as one of these instances.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
joshuapants 12y ago
For an interesting perspective on this, take a look at The Fog of War with Robert S. McNamara. He contrasts the firebombing of Tokyo with the use of nuclear weapons, among a variety of other topics.
bediger4000 12y ago
People have made very good arguments that the atomic bombs didn't cause Japan to surrender: http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japa... Like you say, it's arguable, but it's arguable both ways. That's what makes working on atomic weapons such a morally questionable enterprise.
pluma 12y ago
The theory that Japan wouldn't have been defeated without the Bomb is contended, at best. A far more likely outcome would have been A) the Soviets invading Japan (leading to Japan surrendering to the Allies to maintain their territorial integrity) or B) massive depopulation as a result of the ongoing firebombing. Basically, they'd either have surrendered, or become mostly irrelevant (like North Korea if it weren't for China). Yes, Japan committed atrocities in WW2, but the US wasn't the Good Guy either. There are no good guys in war. It's all just propaganda. And the thing with propaganda is that in order to claim any moral high ground after the war you have to abandon your propaganda and deal with the facts. The US never did that. Instead it dragged itself from one war to the next while pretending to be at peace. The US is at war. It has been for a long time. Only it has outgrown the need of having an enemy. There's probably a clever 1984 reference in here. The US has become a servant to its warfare, sustaining a state of war perpetually, moving from one "enemy" to the next, churning out propaganda for itself and for its allies. Except the propaganda has shaped its culture so much its citizens not only barely notice it anymore, they unknowingly perpetuate it themselves. And our advancements in technology allow the warfare itself to become less and less noticeable to them, too. Instead of scared men in tanks, we are demanding casual suits behind joysticks -- because it makes the warfare so much cleaner and easier, for us. The US isn't a mighty eagle. It's quickly becoming a scared canary in a cage, pecking at buttons to make the scary people go away.
- nostrademons 12y ago
  I think you're proving his point, which IIUC wasn't that the Bomb was necessary to end WW2, it was that there are differing opinions on whether the Bomb was necessary to end WW2. The U.S. has always been highly morally questionable - after all, it's one of a few nations founded by a successful genocidal campaign, which we called Manifest Destiny. The perks of being successful with genocide is that you get to define the story as you wish, since there's nobody to call you out on it. We're not the only country in that boat either, as I think the grandparent post was trying to point out. Japan, if left unchecked, would've happily raped and pillaged all of Korea - they were well on their way already. Russia was just waiting to come in and crush Japan, payback for the Russo-Japanese war 40 years earlier. Germany, of course, started to war in an attempt to exterminate the Jews.
pluma 12y ago
Vigilantism sounds good until you realize you're a rapist.

dataker 12y ago

It's really hard to predict how our skills and projects will be used. Whether nuclear energy or a surveillance system, it might be primarily amazing and then be used for unethical purposes. Instead, the technical community should demand more transparency and control over the applications of their technologies.

afarrell 12y ago

Did that really happen after Hiroshima? How did the U.S. Nuclear arsenal get built?

convivialdingo 12y ago
Yup... Check out fas.org FAS was founded in 1945 by many of the Manhattan Project scientists who wanted to prevent nuclear war and is one of the longest serving organizations in the world dedicated to reducing nuclear threats and informing the public debate by providing technically-based research and analysis on these issues.

knorby 12y ago

Well, one of the most early ethical battles of Manhattan project nuclear physicists was questioning if the H-bomb should be built, and how did that turn out? The US ended up building a massive nuclear arsenal, well beyond any limit of absurd necessity or reason. The NSA only has a hiring crisis because they are attempting to scale in similar ways. Hopefully there is a turn in ethics, but that isn't a solution.

LLWM 12y ago

Ethics is subjective. We've already seen the same thing happen with people deciding non-free software is unethical.