Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Still · Oct 6, 2007, 11:21 pm

Do we have the right to intervene?
I think the international community has both the right and the responsibility to intervene when there is valid reason to believe that scientists and their government in any nation are developing technology that can be considered as weapons of mass destruction.

I've posed this question first in the "Society and Rights" section, but i also want the viewpoint of the scientific community. It is a sad fact that many scientific advancements have been made in the name of war. The race towards the nuclear bomb being the most popular example.

**Jack** · Oct 6, 2007, 11:38 pm

If we deny ourselves technological advancements on the grounds that they have military applications, we also deny ourselves the practical, non-military applications of those same technologies.

We got nuclear energy from research into bomb making. The internet was first developed by ARPNET for military use. Laser technology was early on examined for its military applications (when I was in the Army hydrogen lasers were being touted as the next big battlefield advancement). Early fiber optic developement was funded in large part by the military and agencies like the NSA.

It's hard to predict and separate military applications from peaceful ones. Sometimes we don't know one or the other until a technology has advanced too far to put a stop to it.

Still · Oct 6, 2007, 11:48 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Isherwood

It's hard to predict and separate military applications from peaceful ones. Sometimes we don't know one or the other until a technology has advanced too far to put a stop to it.

I totally agree with you, but the OS states that if we KNOW that this technology is going towards weapons of mass destruction (chemical, nuclear etc), do we have the right AND responsibilty to intervene? I think you'll agree with me when I say yes, for the greater good of the whole world.

**Jack** · Oct 6, 2007, 11:54 pm

Before I signed on to that, I'd have to know to what degree you mean by intervene. Again, if we totally abandon a field of research because of its military applications, we lose any chance we might have to develop peaceful uses for that technology that may make the world a better place. I can't help but think what would the world be like now if hostile anti-military groups had shut down research into the internet because it was being developed by the military to provide redundant lines of communication in the event of a war on our soil.

**Jack** · Oct 7, 2007, 11:26 am

Correction to my post #2.

ARPNET was the creation of ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency), later DARPA (Defense...). ARPNET was the predecessor of the internet we have today.

Suburbanite · Oct 7, 2007, 02:08 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Still

Do we have the right to intervene?
I think the international community has both the right and the responsibility to intervene when there is valid reason to believe that scientists and their government in any nation are developing technology that can be considered as weapons of mass destruction.

I've posed this question first in the "Society and Rights" section, but i also want the viewpoint of the scientific community. It is a sad fact that many scientific advancements have been made in the name of war. The race towards the nuclear bomb being the most popular example.

The problem isn't random mad scientists coming up with the weapons, it is the hired mad scientists in our government. And we already have a wide array of very harmful things, increasing that array, I'd say, hardly plays a roll in harming more people. However, the technological advancements that come from mad scientists may be highly beneficial.

Osborn F Enready · Oct 7, 2007, 02:10 pm

What is considered intervention, and what role does force play in intervention?

Suburbanite · Oct 7, 2007, 02:25 pm

yeah, i mean we cant arrest people for science!

nerdvincent · Oct 10, 2007, 01:28 am

I am a mad scientist, but why aren't you stopping me? :)

First of all, we must remember everyhting is a weapon if we swing it right. The gentle scientist will never harm everybody with his microwave sandwich-warmer gun until government take the concept and ask bad scientists to make one powerful enough to toast peoples. But who have the power to stop mad scientist? This very government.

Oct 6, 2007, 11:21 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Still Sedimentary Rock Posts: 10	Stop "Mad" Scientists? Do we have the right to intervene? I think the international community has both the right and the responsibility to intervene when there is valid reason to believe that scientists and their government in any nation are developing technology that can be considered as weapons of mass destruction. I've posed this question first in the "Society and Rights" section, but i also want the viewpoint of the scientific community. It is a sad fact that many scientific advancements have been made in the name of war. The race towards the nuclear bomb being the most popular example.

Oct 6, 2007, 11:38 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Jack formerly Isherwood Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 13,335	If we deny ourselves technological advancements on the grounds that they have military applications, we also deny ourselves the practical, non-military applications of those same technologies. We got nuclear energy from research into bomb making. The internet was first developed by ARPNET for military use. Laser technology was early on examined for its military applications (when I was in the Army hydrogen lasers were being touted as the next big battlefield advancement). Early fiber optic developement was funded in large part by the military and agencies like the NSA. It's hard to predict and separate military applications from peaceful ones. Sometimes we don't know one or the other until a technology has advanced too far to put a stop to it. The Forum Rules Radical Atheist Heathen Queer Let's agree to respect each others views, no matter how wrong yours may be. (Ashleigh Brilliant)

Oct 6, 2007, 11:54 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Jack formerly Isherwood Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 13,335	Before I signed on to that, I'd have to know to what degree you mean by intervene. Again, if we totally abandon a field of research because of its military applications, we lose any chance we might have to develop peaceful uses for that technology that may make the world a better place. I can't help but think what would the world be like now if hostile anti-military groups had shut down research into the internet because it was being developed by the military to provide redundant lines of communication in the event of a war on our soil. The Forum Rules Radical Atheist Heathen Queer Let's agree to respect each others views, no matter how wrong yours may be. (Ashleigh Brilliant)

Oct 7, 2007, 11:26 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
Jack formerly Isherwood Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 13,335	Correction to my post #2. ARPNET was the creation of ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency), later DARPA (Defense...). ARPNET was the predecessor of the internet we have today. The Forum Rules Radical Atheist Heathen Queer Let's agree to respect each others views, no matter how wrong yours may be. (Ashleigh Brilliant)

Oct 7, 2007, 02:10 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	What is considered intervention, and what role does force play in intervention? Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Oct 7, 2007, 02:25 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	yeah, i mean we cant arrest people for science!

Oct 10, 2007, 01:28 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
nerdvincent NerdyHippieThing 3.1 Location: Who cares? Posts: 827	I am a mad scientist, but why aren't you stopping me? :) First of all, we must remember everyhting is a weapon if we swing it right. The gentle scientist will never harm everybody with his microwave sandwich-warmer gun until government take the concept and ask bad scientists to make one powerful enough to toast peoples. But who have the power to stop mad scientist? This very government. I think, I'm free.