ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:17 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: The Most Moral Weapon Ever Invented
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:05 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 1096
<i>"The neutron bomb has to be the most moral weapon ever invented." -- Sam Cohen, inventor of the neutron bomb.</i>

Bob the Angry Flower linked <a href="http://boingboing.net/profits_of_fear.html">a bio of Sam Cohen</a> with a bit of retrospective on the RAND corporation and the cold war.

Profits of Fear wrote:
Cohen came up with a design for a warhead about one-tenth as powerful as the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. If it was detonated at 3,000 feet above ground level, its blast effects would be negligible while its neutron radiation would be powerful enough to cause death within a circle about one mile in diameter. This was the battlefield weapon that came to be known as the neutron bomb.

Such a weapon obviously would be more civilized than large-scale hydrogen bombs, and would also be more humane than conventional bombs, because it would create an all-or-nothing, live-or-die scenario in which no one would be wounded. A stream of neutrons cannot maim people. It will not burn their flesh, spill their blood, or break their bones. Those who receive a non-lethal dose will recover after a period of intense nausea and diarrhea, and Cohen estimated that their risk of subsequent cancer would be no greater than the risk we experience as a result of exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke. As for the rest, death would come relatively quickly, primarily from shock to the central nervous system. As he put it in his typically candid style, "I doubt whether the agony an irradiated soldier goes through in the process of dying is any worse than that produced by having your body charred to a crisp by napalm, your guts being ripped apart by shrapnel, your lungs blown in by concussion weapons, and all those other sweet things that happen when conventional weapons (which are preferred and anointed by our official policy) are used."

After assessing every aspect and implication of his concept, he reached his modest conclusion: "The neutron bomb has to be the most moral weapon ever invented."


Of course, this is NOT the kind of neutron bomb the US eventually fielded. But I do wonder what would have happened if Cohen's neutron bomb had been built. The article notes the US's massive reluctance during the 50s and 60s to deploying ANY "atomic" equipment against an Asian enemy (even excluding the deployment of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers), but with the cold war over, the stigma of is fading; the US is developing tactical bunker busters again. Would the world community accept the use of a high-altitude neutron bomb?

_________________
Always watching, ever vigilant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:27 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Who gives a rat's ass if the world accepts it?

War is hell. People die. There is no nice war.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:33 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 1096
How insightful. I'm glad you read the source article and were interested in the subject instead of just rapping off a 30 second post.

Obviously global politics are totally irrelevant in modern warfare and we don't already limit the types of weapons we use depending on the type of engagement.

_________________
Always watching, ever vigilant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 7:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2038 9:00 pm
Posts: 3209
The stigma on development is fading, thanks to fearmongering by leaders, but there's no chance they will ever be used. It's just pandering to defense contractors and hardline neocons, because the international response to a nuclear attack (of any type) would be immense. It would probably also open up a wave of state-sponsored nuclear attacks on the US (dirty bombs, smaller nukes, etc.).

_________________
election results: still an op
Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 7:10 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4439
Location: You can't take the sky from me. Since I found Serenity.
Moral Weapon is an oxymoron.

_________________
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 7:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2038 9:00 pm
Posts: 3209
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Moral Weapon is an oxymoron.

Bullshit. A bomb where you die after a few hours of nausea and diarrhea is far more humane than napalm. While the ends may be the same, the means, e.g., causing far less pain, are totally different. This certainly makes it far more moral.

Then again, I would wonder if this would potentially be completely destabilizing (like a hydrogen bomb in a suitcase). Say hello to an insane weapon for assassinations and the like.

_________________
election results: still an op
Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 7:53 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4439
Location: You can't take the sky from me. Since I found Serenity.
Bullshit, when you're dead you're dead. It doesn't matter how you die, you're dead. You're not going to tell anyone how you die. It's not as if you fill out a feedback form.

Neutron bombs are good for leaving infrastructure intact to reduce the cost of rebuilding. But not for any of this "Moral Weapon" crap. At least some of the people who get explodified live to tell about it.

I mean Jesus, how fucked up do you have to be to care about how someone feels before they die. You're killing them. If you really cared about them you wouldn't kill them, would you? Moral Weapons are just pretense. Sickening, misplaced pretense. Do you really think the person you kill's last thoughts are going to be, "Gee! I'm glad he used a moral weapon to end my life, instead of those other conventional weapons that kill me less thoroughly?"

_________________
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:57 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 1096
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
I mean Jesus, how fucked up do you have to be to care about how someone feels before they die. You're killing them. If you really cared about them you wouldn't kill them, would you? Moral Weapons are just pretense. Sickening, misplaced pretense. Do you really think the person you kill's last thoughts are going to be, "Gee! I'm glad he used a moral weapon to end my life, instead of those other conventional weapons that kill me less thoroughly?"

Actually, I think the intent was to kill quickly or not at all, not really to diminish the degree of pain caused.

Under the Geneva Convention, the main classes of weapons that are restricted are those that are as likely to maim or mutilate as they are to kill (white phosphorous, hollow point bullets), and those that kill indiscriminately (poison gas, biologicals). There's not really any "painless killing" clause. But if you accept the position that wars <i>will</i> occur and they <i>will</i> involve killing, then should you not at least try to at least minimize the number of victims and the amount of suffering they'll experience?

Cohen describes touring Seoul after a bombing raid and being horrified by the devastation brought on a largely civilian population. The conclusion then, was that if war and killing <i>had</i> to occur, it should be limited to military targets and a weapon with little or no blast damage and a sharply delimited killing radius would eliminate the need for destruction of civilian lives and property.

_________________
Always watching, ever vigilant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:08 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Thinman wrote:
How insightful. I'm glad you read the source article and were interested in the subject instead of just rapping off a 30 second post.

Obviously global politics are totally irrelevant in modern warfare and we don't already limit the types of weapons we use depending on the type of engagement.


I did rtfa.

The problem with modern warfare is it is far from modern. It doesn't matter what weapons have been developed, we are still trying to fight nice and friendly wars.

Neutron bombs would be lovely. Will they happen? Probably not.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 9:35 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 82
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Moral Weapon is an oxymoron.


First, let's be accurate here. A bomb isn't a weapon, it's a munition. The bomb bay in the bomber is the weapon because it has the triggering and targeting mechanisms.

Second, an oxymoron suggests a contradiction.

The military never uses one person with one weapon. You have a theater and rules of engagement that are dictated, in everything but a military dictatorship, by civilian rule.

A main battle tank, for example, is designed for one primary purpose: to defeat other tanks. It's not moral or immoral, it's a machine. In practice, a tank commander, a gunner, a loader and a driver are operating that vehicle. And they are going to work with at least a wingman, more typically a platoon. And they'll be supported by scouts, infantry, air support and indirect (artillery). And they'll be coordinated by a chain of command.

It gets shitty when there are civilians on the battlefield. But the reality is that we don't get to pick where we want to have a war. At best, if both sides agree and are faithful to the agreement we can limit the destructiveness through the rules of engagement.

Back to TFA, I think Cohen's problem is similar to the author's problem. He thought that there was a techinological solution to war. The author thinks that adopting the right policies will solve war, or, perhaps, that sinister "neocons" are pushing policies that create wars in their zeal to build an empire. Why do they want to build an empire? Because, Pinky, that's what they do every night!

The reality is that you can't be prowar or antiwar. If it's going to happen, it's just a matter of when. Hussein wanted power over the entire Middle East and Bush and the neocons decided that it would be wiser to engage him when they did rather than wait ten years. They might have been wrong, and we might have been wrong when we used Iraq as a proxy against the USSR, but there's no conspiracy that simply created this situation out of thin air.

And no amount of enlightened policy or clever technology can make it go away either.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 2:22 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2003 5:58 pm
Posts: 647
Location: Deins Drawers
I think what Omnipotententity's point is is that it's immoral to kill people thus weapons are by default immoral.


And if it's not your point, then it's mine.

_________________
RMG wrote:
Orks are green and the Soviet flag is red.


Arms too short to box with God.
Initiated by Themadthinker


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 8:23 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Midworld
The point of war is to win. Any weapon that reduces your chance of winning must be, then, immoral, as it inevitably leads to more of your own soldiers getting killed, maimed, burned, etc. So I'd have to completely disagree with Cohen in this case. The neutron bomb may not be the least moral weapon out there, but it's sufficiently lacking compared to more devastating weaponry.

Though it does leave buildings intact, which is a plus.

_________________
Go then. There are other worlds than these.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 6:46 am 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:12 pm
Posts: 3394
Location: Royal Court of Unfounded Speculation
Here's what I find. It all comes down to a few simple truths. Most of the time, you don't want to be there on that battlefield. You wanna know the shocking truth, neither does that guy on the other side. You are both there to kill the other, but you don't want to. This is the basis of war. Now, I'm sittin' there, with this guy that wants to kill me, and you know what, I damn well wish that he has a heart enough o kill me clean, cause I don't want my family to here that I died with shit in my pantse cause I lost bowel control from the pain I experienced. I'd rather a nice hole in my head then a large hole in my arm.


THAT'S why it's a moral weapon. Not cause it's moral killing, but that it allows the person to die with as little discomfort as possable in that situation.

_________________
A man said to the Universe, "Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the Universe, "the fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."


- Stephen Crane


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 4:22 pm 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:44 pm
Posts: 134
Location: Screaming obsenities regarding untestable C++ software.
Why would you use this kind of weapon on soldiers? We can already do that very efficiently. You'd use this kind of weapon against resources that you want to capture intact. That's what it's designed for.

Television & Radio broadcast facilities.
Political centers.
Power plants
Water processing stations
Hospitals
Ammo dumps
Airfields or aircraft carriers

Largely, you would use this weapon on non-combatant targets.

A small group could detonate one of these over a nuclear power plant. Take over control, then kill the power to neighboring cities. When someone figures out what happened, they set the reactor to go critical. Mass chaos, plus millions die in a way that no conventional weapon could facilitate.

_________________
"Their need for total domination and to bring the world to the edge of utter apocalypse makes them less-than-ideal Jenga partners."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 6:28 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:12 pm
Posts: 3394
Location: Royal Court of Unfounded Speculation
Or more humane and benificial to the world at large...

The White House
The pentagon...

actually all of DC

_________________
A man said to the Universe, "Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the Universe, "the fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."


- Stephen Crane


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 6:40 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4439
Location: You can't take the sky from me. Since I found Serenity.
Quote:
A small group could detonate one of these over a nuclear power plant. Take over control, then kill the power to neighboring cities. When someone figures out what happened, they set the reactor to go critical. Mass chaos, plus millions die in a way that no conventional weapon could facilitate.


Plus fallout for thousands of years. Congradulations you just wiped the human race.

Image

_________________
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 7:22 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2001 5:00 pm
Posts: 5769
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Chaos_Descending wrote:

actually all of DC


Yeah! You show all those poor people who's boss!

_________________
iothera: a science fantasy


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:10 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 1096
Ylis wrote:
A small group could detonate one of these over a nuclear power plant. Take over control, then kill the power to neighboring cities. When someone figures out what happened, they set the reactor to go critical. Mass chaos, plus millions die in a way that no conventional weapon could facilitate.

If this "small group" can build a high altitude neutron bomb, why the hell would they NEED to capture a nuclear power plant?

_________________
Always watching, ever vigilant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:17 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:49 pm
Posts: 399
Location: Somewhere else
It would be really easy to kill the power to neighboring cities without having to find a nuclear tech. It's called dynamite. Blow up all the transformer stations you can find, and *bam,* they're not gonna have power restored any time soon. Wires are easy (and fast) to replace, a transformer station, not so much.

_________________
--- This space for let ---


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:24 pm 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:44 pm
Posts: 134
Location: Screaming obsenities regarding untestable C++ software.
The main point was that the weapon itself isn't moral or otherwise. It's a tool, by which people may achieve a goal. Just because the weapon is "cleaner" than alternative weapons doens't mean that you can't use it in some pretty f&cked up applications.

_________________
"Their need for total domination and to bring the world to the edge of utter apocalypse makes them less-than-ideal Jenga partners."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group