The Perfect Weapon
[Photo: put every weapon down, plant the flower by Bash Linx]Imagine that a perfect weapon existed. This weapon would eliminate collateral damage, ensuring that only the intended target is "hit." Essentially, the lives of innocent bystanders and surrounding property would be left intact, untouched. Now imagine the uses of a perfect weapon. Who would use such a technology and how? Would it be used in an "ethical" and "moral" manner?
Sam Harris, in the book The End of Faith, poses this contemplation. He argues that ethical leaders would choose to use perfect weapons in a much different manner than their counterparts. He asserts that although perfect weapons eliminate collateral damage, unethical leaders would still opt to employ these weapons against innocent people. Harris notes that George Bush and the ramifications of the "war on terror" have been compared to the atrocities committed by the likes of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and Hitler. However, he argues that a major difference between Bush and these men is their respective ethical groundings, highlighted by considering how each would choose to use a perfect weapon. Would the strategy in Iraq have been different had Bush had access to perfect weapons? Would efforts have been made to avoid the deaths of civilians? How would bin Laden or Hussein use a perfect weapon?
If a perfect weapon existed, do you believe that its use is more ethically grounded than current warfare technology? Do you believe that such weapons would be used for "good" instead of ""bad"? Do you believe that Bush's moral character is what distinguishes him from other leaders that have a history of perpetuating violence and death?
Sam Harris, in the book The End of Faith, poses this contemplation. He argues that ethical leaders would choose to use perfect weapons in a much different manner than their counterparts. He asserts that although perfect weapons eliminate collateral damage, unethical leaders would still opt to employ these weapons against innocent people. Harris notes that George Bush and the ramifications of the "war on terror" have been compared to the atrocities committed by the likes of Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and Hitler. However, he argues that a major difference between Bush and these men is their respective ethical groundings, highlighted by considering how each would choose to use a perfect weapon. Would the strategy in Iraq have been different had Bush had access to perfect weapons? Would efforts have been made to avoid the deaths of civilians? How would bin Laden or Hussein use a perfect weapon?
If a perfect weapon existed, do you believe that its use is more ethically grounded than current warfare technology? Do you believe that such weapons would be used for "good" instead of ""bad"? Do you believe that Bush's moral character is what distinguishes him from other leaders that have a history of perpetuating violence and death?
Technorati tag: Sam Harris, The End of Faith, perfect weapon, George Bush
The perfect weapon would still be abused because the people using it are imperfect.
The perfect weapon is a secret agent who infiltrates a target's inner circle and mysteriously terminates the target with extreme prejudice without leaving a trace.
Remember the Neutron Bomb? A weapon would kill people and leave buildings standing...or chemical weapons that would do virtually the same thing.
Educating the terrified, brainwashed subjects of a despotic maniac is still my idea of a perfect weapon.
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day...show a man how to think for himself and all hell will break loose!
Posted by
Romeo Morningwood |
11/06/2006 01:13:00 PM
H.E.,
You read my mind 100% The Neutron Bomb! Although it would kill many innocent lives, it would be devastatingly accurate as perfect weapon.
Second,
Biotoxic and Chemical weapons are always effective as a perfect weapon towards man. At the same time it will kill many civilans but is accurate at hitting its target.
Also I agree about someone infiltrating a target's inner circle. No remorse and without prejudice. It is highly, highly effective and could save thousands of lives.
Brainwashed fanatics blend in and you don't know who they are. That is an effective use as a perfect weapon.
Wow, H.E., you and I are on the same brain wave about this one.
If you want to send man back to the stone age an E.M.P. (worldwide)will do the trick.
Posted by
Anonymous |
11/06/2006 05:29:00 PM
I agree with HE, we well educated critically thinking populace is the best weapon against tyranny. Something like a logic bomb would be ideal.
Ultimately a Weapon is a Weapon. Whether it causes collateral damage or not is irrelevant. Frankly I think collateral damage and civilian casualties are important in war. War should be the last resort of any civilized society, so if it comes to that, it should be ugly and horrible and destructive to make sure everyone exhausts every option avialable before pulling the trigger.
If you could just push a button and the person you don't like would die without any trouble, assassination from a distance would be easy and could become commonplace.
Also if Bush is considered the sane, moral one in the world, we're in big trouble!
Posted by
Anonymous |
11/06/2006 05:57:00 PM
Does the perfect weapon need to kill the intended target at all? Could it just banish them, instead?
'WASHINGTON, D.C., The President was mysteriously transferred into a parallel-dimension Monday, believed to have been banished by the leader of Warlockistan. The warlockian leader wasn't immediately available for comment.'
Would it be enough for us to just remove our enemies from existence temporarily, to solve our political conflicts, or is the permanence of death truly required to have us feel like we've won? To give either side the ability to sit its foe in 'time out', until some other governing body could determine what form of justice was appropriate?
It always strikes me how cavalier we are when it comes to targetting military/insurgent leaders (which often leads to collateral damage, and us missing the intended target anyway). We claim it's alright, due to our being at war, but Lord help us if they were to ever do the same thing here, against targets they felt justified attacking while we're at war. Would we be willing to accept collateral damage here, as simply the "nature of war"? (Who do you suppose they'd print up on their '52-most-wanted' decks?)
We ask for such a crazy level of tolerance, in my opinion. :)
Posted by
LV7 |
11/06/2006 06:40:00 PM