Nuclear/conventional weapons firmware engineers morally bankrupt?? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: JoeN
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2015, 10:34:11 pm
content: Nah, they're OK. It's just the VW engineers we want to take a dump on.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2015, 11:02:04 pm
content: Of course the North Korean engineers are the worst. Lol.

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2015, 11:08:48 pm
content: No. They are just criminals. Against humanity.

author: bitslice
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2015, 11:16:18 pm
content: Is it just me or is Obama letting Iran do anything involving nuclear energy, completely insane?Was it some kind of deal to get help with Syria or something?

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2015, 11:23:19 pm
content: Quote from: bitslice on September 29, 2015, 11:16:18 pmNo worries, we have 10 years left

author: Srbel
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2015, 07:23:13 am
content: Quote from: bitslice on September 29, 2015, 11:16:18 pmOh, please Obama, come to my country and tell me what I can and can not do in it.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2015, 07:56:07 am
content: QuoteTo be fair, weapons can be used in offense (in which case the people using them are assholes*) and in defense (in which case people using them have the moral high ground**).* - exceptions apply - if your neighbor outright says that his long term goal is your country destroyed, annihilated etc. then preemptive strikes can be OK, and similar** - exceptions apply - as is always the case, morality is based on the point of view of the individualAt the end of the day, engineers in this are innocent - had they refused to do their work, and your side is left with sticks and stones, while the opponent has guns and nukes, they are in the wrong.There's a great difference between designing a weapon that can be used (and is intended to) defend your country and loved ones, and a code that cheats at mandatory regulatory tests.

author: DenzilPenberthy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2015, 02:22:43 pm
content: Quote from: daqq on September 30, 2015, 07:56:07 amThis is a topic I've often wanted to discuss. Both here and with colleagues in real life. I've never really wanted to start it though because it's inevitably going to become highly politicised.I think the quote above contains a key point. In some fictional scenario where one's country is 'the goodies' and it is being attacked by 'baddies' there is obviously no moral issue with working in defence. That's because in that scenario the 'defence' industry really is about defence.In the real world though we all know that the defence industry has very little to do with actually defending anyone or anything. When was the last *genuinely* defensive operation the American military undertook? For the UK you would probably have to go back to the Falklands? Obviously this line of discussion is where thestartsHow many of the weapons sold at the DSEI show in London recently are being used to defend people?Personally I skip over job adverts as soon as I see the word defence. I get that there are a ton of ways to rationalise it like 'I'm building missiles for the good guys' or 'I just make the stuff I don't get a say in what it's used for' and I genuinely do understand that it is necessary to have a military and that sometimes military operations are necessary... But when I see on the TV about some primary school being incinerated by a drone strike I don't have to go to sleep at night knowing that I built it. Or seeing people's basic human rights being crushed by an authoritarian regime I don't have to think 'huh, I work for the company that makes those stun batons'.I don't really see how having a nice job designing amazing radars for missiles is any different from running a shady gun shop and selling pieces to gangsters in a town riddled with crime.

author: bitslice
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 30, 2015, 02:57:45 pm
content: Nobody really gets to be the goodies any more, we are all just countries competing for the same resources and hoping nobody upsets the apple cart by doing anything dumb.Even trying to be the goody in any situation is likely to precipitate disasters like the current immigration situation.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 04:24:11 am
content: Quote from: Srbel on September 30, 2015, 07:23:13 amSrbel,Iran signed a treaty in 1968 called "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty" (aka NPT). That treaty gives the rest of the 190+ NPT countries a right to check and see if fellow members are following the principal they agreed to in the treaty. Iran can withdraw from the treaty as North Korea did, but I suppose Iran stayed in for the benefit of being a member country of NPT.According to your flag, you are from Serbia. Serbia also signed the Treaty, so unless and until Serbia withdraw from the NPT, any of the other 190+ NPT members can demand inspection, and/or demand you change your way if they have reason to suspect you are not following the treaty obligations. So, (picking a country at random) Mozambique President can demand Serbia to do XYZ in so far as nuclear weapon suspicion goes.India, Pakistan and Israel for example are countries that didn't sign the NPT. So neither Serbia or Mozambique or anyone else cannot call for inspections of their nuclear stuff based on NPT obligations.Rick

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 04:47:31 am
content: Quote from: bitslice on September 30, 2015, 02:57:45 pmWhen it comes to nukes, I still think one of the most stunning facts is that no nuke has ever gone off by accident, miscalculation, or madness:It's only a matter of time...

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 04:52:17 am
content: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_LinkThe technology the US developed makes that very unlikely. What's saddening is that the US had the opportunity to share the safety technology with other nuclear-armed nations, but was restricted from doing so by ITAR.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 05:02:14 am
content: Quote from: DenzilPenberthy on September 30, 2015, 02:22:43 pmTwo sides to every coin. Even the Falklands can be viewed as merely an aggressive action by England to hold on to land they have no rights to in the eyes of Argentina.We can all agree that there are bad persons out there. We can also agree that bad person can by inheritance or con his/her way to the top and run a country.Some times, the confluence of events makes the worst of person the leader of a country. Leader in German is Furhrer, so you know what I mean right there. If there is no weapon to defend against the bad, what is a good person to do? We can go back to cave-man days and whoever is stronger can dictate what is "right".Attacking injustice is a way defend justice. So having good weapons to do that is not a bad thing, be it defensive weapon or offensive weapon.

author: DenzilPenberthy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 09:05:02 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on October 02, 2015, 05:02:14 amI don't think the UK's defence industry is defending justice anywhere in the world.selected from the following article about the DSEI arms fair in London this yearhttp://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-more-appalling-the-human-rights-record-the-better-the-customer-at-londons-arms-fair-today-10500389.html"The British government's eagerness to boost arms sales meant they invited numerous states with appalling human rights records to DSEI. In fact, it seems that the more appalling the human rights record, or the less democratic the country, the better the customer. Of the top 8 buyers of UK arms, 4 of them are authoritarian states with atrocious human rights records according to Amnesty International.Furthermore, of the 61 countries invited to this year’s DSEI, a quarter of them are ‘authoritarian’ according to the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index. These include all the Gulf countries: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and UAE. And let’s not forget the slightly less wealthy Bahrain, a tiny monarchy with an oppressive regime which has engaged in human rights abuses throughout the past four years that include systematic torture, extra-judicial killing, enforced disappearances, and the weaponisation of tear gas. Bahrain’s invitation to the DSEI highlights how the UK continues to play ‘the dirty role of matchmaker between trader and torturer.’Such matchmaking is, however, lucrative. The GCC countries, all of whom are ranked by Freedom House as authoritarian, make excellent customers. Bahrain has bought £77 million worth of military equipment and dual use equipment off the UK since 2011. The UAE, a tiny country with deep pockets, has spent a staggering £6.3 billion on both military and dual use equipment in the same period, making it the UK’s biggest arms customer.More shocking still is that Saudi Arabia, the second largest importer of UK arms, whose arms imports from the UK totalled £3.8 billion between 2011 – 2015, was noted by Freedom House to be among the 12 ‘worst of the worst’ countries in terms of civil and political rights. It was also ranked 161 out of 167 on the Democracy Index. (To put things into perspective, North Korea was 167). Despite this alarming ranking, the DSEI will be a forum for further exploiting the lucrative Saudi market, and there will be a keynote speech providing a 'comprehensive assessment of the Saudi market place and how best to establish and develop [one's] business in the Kingdom.’"

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 09:12:37 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on October 02, 2015, 05:02:14 amWeapons don't attack injustice. They attack people, and usually in a very indiscriminate way.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 09:53:07 am
content: Quote from: helius on October 02, 2015, 04:52:17 amThat does nothing for the accident part.I can highly recommend this:http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143125788

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 10:08:11 am
content: Quote from: helius on October 02, 2015, 04:52:17 amAnd that's precisely why it's still possible. Of course it's almost inconceivable that the US are going to set off a nuke as an act of madness, but there are many other countries who can, and have the ideology and political instability to allow that to happen, not to mention a lack of security.The greatest threat to the human race and modern society as we know it, is nuclear weapons. For get climate change, that's nothing.

author: DenzilPenberthy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 10:22:01 am
content: From the wikipedia link posted above:"In 2007, the UK Government revealed that its nuclear weapons were not equipped with Permissive Action Links. Instead, the UK's nuclear bombs to be dropped by aircraft were armed by just inserting a key into a simple lock similar to those used to protect bicycles from theft. The UK withdrew all air-launched bombs in 1998. The current UK Trident warheads can also be launched by a submarine commander with the support of his crew without any code being transmitted from the chain of command."I didn't know that before. It does not make me feel good.Seeing as we're discussing nukes, time for the obligatory 'Threads' link. An excellent film made by the BBC in the early '80s. But don't watch it if you want to do something fun later. It's quite bleak.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 10:36:38 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on October 02, 2015, 10:08:11 amThese things might not be unconnected. War is usually the result of economic issues, and climate change will very likely result in dire economic consequences.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 10:37:53 am
content: QuoteI would say certain ideologies and how they play with others are the number one threat - weapons are harmless until someone wants to use them. If the world was populated by live-and-let-live (and solve-your-own-problems,we'll-solve-ours) ideology users, there would be no need for war/weapons. Unfortunately, some people have gotten into their heads that their way of doing/worshiping stuff is so great, that everyone should, nay MUST do the same. The outcome of this is a localized nasty event, that can easily spread, and before you know it, you've got a formerly civilized, nice society reduced to nigh-dark age barbarism.Unfortunately, engineers in such a world are left in a moral place where they must choose a lesser evil at the end of the day - will I create weapons that will (amongst other things*) be used to protect me, my country and my loved ones, or do not design anything that can be abused, sit back and hope nothing bad happens**.Every technology designed by engineers can be used or abused. The internet revolutionized trade, education, medicine. Unfortunately it also revolutionized child pornography, sales of illegal substances, weapons and the distribution of Justin Bieber music.The wheel revolutionized transportation of all goods, food, commercial items, settlers, slaves, war engines included.Weapons are just a technology that has greater potential for direct misuse/abuse and the outcomes are more visible, more direct and more horrible.* - the other things that it can be used have already been mentioned and it is that part that worries me** - yes, I know that things are not that black and white, there are other ways engineers can promote peace probably...

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 10:49:25 am
content: Quote from: DenzilPenberthy on October 02, 2015, 09:05:02 amDon't blame industry. They are just businesses trying to sell their wares. Blame a government that is so messed up they will provide export licences for selling practically anything to anyone. That is how the standard for an acceptable sale is set.The defence industry really hates wars. Whilst they create excellent opportunities to sell replacements for weapons that are used up, international law stops you supplying the people at war until they have ended the conflict. It can be pretty bad for cash flow. It doesn't stop you negotiating sales, though, or doing the R&D for any customisation they want.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 10:56:09 am
content: Quote from: daqq on October 02, 2015, 10:37:53 amNo. The very existence of nuclear weapons provides the capability to destroy life as we know it.And they also need to be carefully maintained, and as evidence by many incidents in the past that show just how close we have come to large scale nuclear weapons accidents.QuoteI suspect you fail to comprehend the magnitude of the scale of destruction that nuclear weapons can inflict. Even a simple accident can wipe out millions of people.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 10:59:39 am
content: Quote from: DenzilPenberthy on October 02, 2015, 10:22:01 amSame with a lot of the US stockpile up until as recent as the late 80's.It's simply amazing we survived the cold war without a single nuke going off, a stunning fluke.This isn't even close to being a complete of accidents:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidentsMore feel-good:http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/Brokenarrows_static.shtml

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 11:03:40 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on October 02, 2015, 10:56:09 amI thought we were talking about nuclear accidents. The world needs to fear the destructive power of a massive nuclear exchange. However, in global terms, a bomb going off by accident is a minor incident. Very bad for anyone within quite a few kilometres, but no threat to the world. Large numbers of bombs, including a number of really big H bombs, were exploded in the atmosphere before this was banned by international agreement, to reduce the pollution it caused.

author: DenzilPenberthy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 11:22:37 am
content: Hehe, just realised that I've got this t-shirt on today.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 11:23:43 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on October 02, 2015, 10:56:09 amI am well aware of the potential risks - I was not clear - I am scared shittless of nuclear weapons.But an accident, while horrible, is nothing compared to targeted, malicious use with intent. Intent will come from ideology or insanity, either the ideology of the individual, or the ideology of the state or whoever is in charge. And with intent present, you do not need nukes to cause horror - they are just the newest means of distributing horror. It is ideology that motivates the building of such devices - on going on some imbecilic quest to spread religion/politics/whatever. Some ideologies are OK with the existence of opposing points of view, others, not so much.You can destroy the whole world stockpile of nuclear weapons tomorrow, but you will still be left with nutjobs, whom, if given the change or means will happily build the next new and improved doomsday device.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 11:29:15 am
content: Quote from: coppice on October 02, 2015, 11:03:40 amAgain you fail to comprehend the magnitude of the scale of destruction that nuclear weapons can inflict.A few kilometers? This isn't the 1940's, they have thermonuclear weapons now.The W-53 warhead atop the Titan II that blew up in 1980 had a yield of 9 megatons. Had that gone off Hiroshima would paled in comparison.http://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/18/how_the_us_narrowly_avoided_aAnd they still routinely fly nukes over populated areas.

author: GNU_Ninja
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 11:30:16 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on October 02, 2015, 10:08:11 amActually, I believe human stupidity is a far greater threat. Everyone should read this book published in 1932 by Walter B Pitkin 'A Short Introduction to Human Stupidity'. Its a real eye opener.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Short-Introduction-History-Human-Stupidity/dp/B000859CG0

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 11:35:14 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on October 02, 2015, 11:29:15 amNumerous 9 megaton bombs have already been detonated in the atmosphere. They do make Hiroshima look small, and they will flatten a large city. However, if you think such an accident will threaten humanity you've really lost it.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 11:36:28 am
content: Quote from: daqq on October 02, 2015, 11:23:43 amI agree, but a single accident is still capable of killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, such is the scale of thermonuclear weapons.QuoteYep, but they can't build thousands of them. And it's ridiculously hard to build a thermo-nuclear device or an implosion device for that matter.A few nutjubs could build a gun type nuclear device in the backyard given the material, but that's about it. The next biggest threat is biological.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 11:42:27 am
content: Quote from: coppice on October 02, 2015, 11:35:14 amI am not saying that, of course that's baloney.There are two issues I'm talking about. One is the existential threat posed by the possession of nuclear weapons, and more specially, ones on hair trigger alert as they still are and the possibility of nuclear exchange.The other is that of a single nuclear accident or single madman with a nuke.Actually, it's not that far fetched that a single nuclear accident could actually threaten humanity. This is what Kenndy was talking about when he mentioned "miscalculation".A single nuke goes off by accident, no one is left to report why or how, people with itchy trigger fingers think it's *insert who or why*, and that leads to escalation and an exchange.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 11:56:25 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on October 02, 2015, 11:44:20 amHuman designed, and human maintained fail safe systems.

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 12:03:47 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on October 02, 2015, 11:56:25 amYup, and no such thing as a fail safe, fail safe.These mechanisms require constant upgrades/protection/savvy, staying one step ahead of the people attempting to exploit them.

author: GNU_Ninja
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 12:17:58 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on October 02, 2015, 12:06:20 pmThe late Walter B Pitkin knewhttp://www.redwoodlibrary.org/blog/rkelly/2013/10/01/stacks-short-introduction-history-human-stupidity-walter-b-pitkin

author: VK5RC
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 12:28:43 pm
content: Honestly I am far more worried about biological weapons, they really are the genie that can't be got back into the bottle and after release can mutate so negate any protection you may have for them. they are a hellovalot smaller than a nuke and the containment systems have failed several times already.

author: vinicius.jlantunes
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 12:46:46 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on October 02, 2015, 10:59:39 am"Thanks" for the link to the unsettling wikipedia article. I had no idea so much shit had already happened. I hate you Dave

author: AF6LJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 01:00:19 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on October 02, 2015, 10:59:39 amTo say they were armed by the turn of a key is an oversimplifaction. The arming key must be turned in a proper left right sequence, one mistake and the lock is rendered useless, you cannot continue to turn it, the lock locks up.I am not a "hawk" as a matter of fact being Pro-Life requires me to be anti war, unless it is in self defense.With that said, if anybody is going to have nukes I think we all would like it to be our respective countries.That tends to make the average person feel more secure.

author: AF6LJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 01:02:11 pm
content: Quote from: VK5RC on October 02, 2015, 12:28:43 pmThat is far more worrisome than a few nukes.

author: GNU_Ninja
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 01:03:29 pm
content: Quote from: AF6LJ on October 02, 2015, 01:02:11 pmWe can use the nukes to sterilise the areas contaminated by bio-weapons

author: AF6LJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 02:03:31 pm
content: Quote from: GNU_Ninja on October 02, 2015, 01:03:29 pmFor whatever reason; mankind seeks to destroy itself.

author: AF6LJ
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 03:04:17 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on October 02, 2015, 02:10:24 pmSome of that is debatable; We would have the Internet without DARPA, it was the next logical step in mass media and entertainment. Several people including Marshall McLuhan predicted the Internet as far back as the mid 60s. This guy also predicted that long distance calling in most first world countries would be free by the turn of the century. (he was right).As for nuclear power it is the dirtiest of all power sources. A nuclear meltdown will do more environmental damage than an H-Bomb. I am not a tree hunger by any stretch; but there is no safe way to dispose of high level nuclear waste.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 03:50:16 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on October 02, 2015, 10:59:39 amThose accidents are nothing compared to what this guy did:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_PetrovIf he would have followed order, there would be a nuclear wasteland everywhere. He is my Russian superhero, saved the world.Fail safes can break. They are unreliable.

author: continuo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2015, 11:51:37 am
content: Makes me wonder it the "Dead Hand"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_(nuclear_war)or a possible successor is still in use? Just to think about such an automated launch system gives you the creeps. Pure madness...

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2015, 01:28:40 pm
content: 10 nukes, 1000 nukes are fine, wherever you have them stockpiled as a big stick. What worries me is the group who is fine with just **__ONE__** nuclear bomb, irrespective of size.Just remember that of all the nuclear weapons in storage, none have been tested to actual detonation for decades ( aside from a few tested around the world in places) so if they actually are called to use most will likely fail to operate as designed. IIRC the USA weapons require servicing at 6 month intervals, to replace the initiators as they decay, and to replace failed electronics that have been degraded by radiation. USSR weapons were also serviced at around the same interval, so any that were not serviced for the last 10 years, no matter who has them at the moment, will very likely not detonate at all, or will misfire at best, with only a small blast.

author: JoeN
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2015, 07:41:02 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on October 03, 2015, 01:28:40 pmThe US weapons, at least, will work as advertised.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 04, 2015, 02:46:32 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on October 04, 2015, 12:46:48 amWilfred, your observations have been on my mind as well.Many folks often assume/hope that perhaps someday human will advance to when we don't hate others, and live peacefully with each other. But as long as human being human, we have emotions, we have ambition, we have envy, we covet what others have... Once those emotions are in play, we are not at peace with ourselves let alone with others.The original (1956) Invasion of the Body Snatchers and the 1978 version rather than chase action or special effects, stayed with the theme of the pod people being well organized, cooperative, but emotionless human.Without the help of the seed pods, we can develop ourselves into well organized, cooperative, but emotionless human. Trouble is, are we really human anymore when we lack the emotions that define us. How would a society be like when all "human" are emotionless, ambition-less, desire-less...