Mass Destruction Research Ethics

Great Debates
1

The threat of bioterrorism has provoked me to think about the ethics of researching weapons of mass destruction.

Before Hiroshima, the science community was far more open and close. Science was meant to transcend national borders and research was seen as a fulfillment of humanity’s quest for knowledge- moving us close to a better world. Of course there was alway weapons research (Da Vinci designed a tank) but it was nothing like today.

Then came Hiroshima and science lost it’s innocence. The commmunity split, and the ones who did not believe in researching weapons of mass destruction lost. Research has now taken on great secrecy as governments and private interests create dangerous and/or profitable innovations.

Which brings me to my question. When we designed the nuclear weapon, it was with a specific goal and a specific deployment involved. After that, however, we never stopped. We have spent our peace time developing more and more weapons of mass destruction. Some of these, like smallpox, are completly indiscrimanate and have no place even in war. Even with talk of nuclear disarment we still kept up researching chemical and biological weapons, as we condemned that same research by others.

Is this a bad policy? Only a few countries have the resourses to do breakthrough research on weapons of mass destructions. For a long time during the cold war we did it under the name of “keeping up with the Jones” with the assumption that if we didn’t do it the USSR would, but now there is no Joneses to keep up with. It is not inevitable that someone will come up with these breakthroughs. If none of the countries with the resources to develop weapons of mass destruction did so, it is reasonable to assume that that would prevent new forms of evil from entering the world. It is also reasonable to assume that what research we do manage to keep secret will not stay that way forever. Infromation has a way of spreading. Look at what happened to all of the USSR’s weapons of mass destruction when it fell. Chaos ensued and secrets got out. We must assume that any developments we make will one day be public.

The research I am concerned with is development. I understand the need to research cures, deployment and other defensive strategies, but development of new weapons of mass destruction- especially ones that we have no immediate use for- is something different entirely.

So what we are doing when we develop weapons of mass destruction is doing the hard part of the research (resource intense development) so that when someone nastier and poorer finally gets their hands on our research they’ll have an easier time using that technology against us. In fact, plenty of things we develope (weaponized contagious diseases, for example) have no legitamite or immediate us by us and yet can be really useful to our enemies.

It seems to me that we are damning our future with our scientific zeal. Maybe there are some things that are better left unknown. Scientific research is not a neutral act. We will always be stuck with the legacy of the weapons we developed. Is it time to stop developing more?

2

even sven’s OP takes me back to 1960, my freshman year at the University of Chicago, when a similar idea was posted on a bulletin board by a peace organization.

On the one hand, even sven and the pacificts are right. Development of new WMD’s could cause the destruction of the entire human race.

On the other hand, I see no way to get all countries and all groups to create a permanent, enforceable agreement not to develop the science.

As long as other countries or groups may be moving ahead in this area, my country needs to move ahead as well.

I’m not happy about this situation, but this seems to be reality.

3

Why? you already have nukes. If someone attacks you with mass destruction weapons no matter wich kind they are (biologial, chemical or nuclear) you could always give the bastards a nice tan. Of course researching for ways to protect you against those weapons is in principle right (not the case with you anti-nukes shield)

4

But countries create permanent, enforceable agreements all the time, often giving up a little bit of national power in international interests. Although I don’t like most of the international trade deals floating around, I’ll offer them up as an example. It would only take a handful of powerful countries to sign an agreement like this, and almost all the others would fall into place.

Technology is not inevitable. We’ve come to treat technology as human beings didn’t build it, but rather that it built itself. Governments exist for protecting society, and when the development of a weapon is of greater risk than its offer of protection, it’s not worth it.

My country decided never to develop nuclear weapons, and I’m glad we’ve stuck to it. Nor do we have chemical or biological weapons. Really, why would any country need weapons that obliterate the entire human race or the entire more than once. It hardly sounds like protection to me.

5

I’ve seen some evidence lately of a widespread belief that we (the USA) are actively researching and developing new biological and chemical weapons, and have munitions on hand for use at any time. I’ve heard statements attesting to this ‘fact’ several times in real life and online. I’m not picking on you, even sven, I just wanted to take the opportunity to remark on the official US stance.

I remarked on the official policy in the thread “Time to Talk about ABC Weapons?” ( http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=95136 ), so I won’t rehash all of that post here. Suffice it to say that we have signed and ratified both the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention. Both of these treaties obligate us to cease developement and deployment of biological and chemical weapons. The CWC and BWC also require us to eliminate our stockpiles of these weapons. I’m involved peripherally with the chemical weapons elimination effort and it is well underway. In fact, I believe that elimination of our stockpile at Johnston Atoll is complete.

Now, I’m not naive enough to believe blindly that we’ve followed this treaty to the letter. There may be classified projects that the public doesn’t know about. Nevertheless, this is the official policy and I know enough about the programs to know that we are indeed complying with our treaty obligations as far as I can possibly tell. Some countries suspected of C&B weapon development have also signed these treaties, however.

Of course, nuclear weapons are another matter entirely. . .

6

What has been obliquely mentioned here is the perennial tailchase of measure and countermeasure pursued by military organizations in the promotion of national security.

The fundamental dichotomy lies in the fact that the only way to investigate ways of defending ourselves against attack with weapons of mass destruction is to also develop and study those same weapons as well. Although the rampant development of our nuclear arsenal may have been an overreaction to the threat of Communism neither was it insufficient to the task. The balancing act required by our research into such problems is one of vast proportions and is certainly worthy of discussion. In view of the current bioterrorism attacks upon the United States I do not foresee any great reduction of our own work in that field.

7

However, the US and the rest of the powerful countries did sign up against biological wea;ons as Hamish suggests, and look at where we are right now – fighting anthrax and worrying aobut smallpox.

8

This is a bit OT but it’s always gotten me when people say, “Geez, you’ve got enough nukes to blowup the world 7 times over! How many more do you need?”

It’s not as if our government sits around and thinks it just really needs enough nukes to make an 8[sup]th[/sup] go at the entire world. What usually ended up happening is a missile (for example) was developed and deployed. Later on a better missile was developed and deployed. The original missiles often stayed where they were because it was often cheaper to leave them be then it was to destroy them. At the very least you keep the business part of the bomb and store it while just destroying the vehicle it was supposed to ride in (storage being cheaper than dismantling an atomic weapon). Also, in the interests of credible deterrent against the USSR, we needed a sizeable stockpile of nukes in the form of sea based, land based and air based weapons. Each had to have enough in its own right to seriously threaten the USSR even if the other two sides were taken out. MAD (mutually assured destruction), as warped a concept as it is, seemed to work pretty well as far as the US and the USSR were concerned.

So there you go, enough nukes to wipe out the world seven times over (or whatever that figure was supposed to be). It’s not as sinister as it first seems and I’m even a little surprised it’s not more (not that I’d wish for such a thing…7 is quite enough).