Selling Weapons Technology-

[Kylonicus]

I have an idea for an easily constructed weapon of mass destruction, which I was thinking about selling the tech to the U.S government.

 

The advantage of this weapon, is it only kills life, and leaves everything else alone, and requires very, very little resources to operate.

 

It could concievably be much more destructive than a nuclear bomb, in terms of the total death toll, but has no long term negative effects on the land where it is used(other than everything dying, which could be replenished by planting new seeds and stuff, and adding bacteria and what not).

 

I feel ethical qualms about doing this however...

 

I was thinking about getting into the business of being an exterminator, as I would have a distinct technological advantage, and this would be less of an inconvinence to the people I'd work for. I could get in, exterminate the insects and get out.

 

I also have an idea for easily achieved, cost effective mind control, which I could also sell to the government.

 

Is there anything unethical about this?

 

But I don't really need all that much money, as I have another technology which I'm working on right now, that would greatly improve the production of energy(to such a degree that I believe I will get rich).

[Callipygous]

it depends how you look at it.

 

on the one side, how could you not be morally wrong for creating something that is designed to kill millions?

 

on the other, you just made it. are you responsible for how it gets used by the people you sell it to?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I don't think you can walk up to your local weapons depot and say "I'd like to sell you a weapon of mass destruction, do you like it?"

[ecoli]

unless you weapon had equal capacity for constructiveness as it does for destructiveness, I'd say you are ethically responsible for those deaths.

[Callipygous]

I don't think you can walk up to your local weapons depot and say "I'd like to sell you a weapon of mass destruction, do you like it?"

 

 

and i dont think he has 3 revolutionary ideas, one that controls minds, one that easily kills millions, and one that will change energy production as we know it, none of which any of the scientists that came before him have ever thought of.

 

but is any of that relevant to his ethics question?

[ecoli]

but is any of that relevant to his ethics question?

 

nope... a big part of ethics rests in hypotheticals.

[Neil9327]

on the one side' date=' how could you not be morally wrong for creating something that is designed to kill millions?

[/quote']

 

This is a difficult point to prove. In the first and second world wars millions of people died. Since nuclear weapons were first made available in 1945 deaths in the west from wars have dropped hugely.

So paradoxically perhaps making something that was designed to kill millions actually saved millions.

 

The advantage of this weapon' date=' is it only kills life, and leaves everything else alone, and requires very, very little resources to operate.

[/quote']

 

Could it be used on and by suicide bombers? Maybe we could give the technology to Osama Bin Laden, and set up an effective MAD (mutually assured destruction) scenario between us, to stop Al Qaeda in its tracks.

[JesuBungle]

Maybe we could give the technology to Osama Bin Laden, and set up an effective MAD (mutually assured destruction) scenario between us, to stop Al Qaeda in its tracks.

 

The problem with that is, Al Qaeda is all about martyrdom. They don't care if they die. Just as long as they destroy "the infidel" in the process.

[Kylonicus]

Well, not to seem racist, but I was actually hoping the United States would use it against the Middle East. My view is that, nuclear weapons have horrible reprocussions, as they spread both dust and radioactive fallout across the entire world. This weapon has no such negative reprocussions, the only thing eliminated is life.

 

Thus, we can't really use nuclear weapons as a deterrent now days, because everyone knows that since the effects of nuclear weapons are global, then they know that countries like the United States would only use them last, last resort. Only if the international backlash would be less than what was being lost otherwise. So countries like Iran(which is filled with a huge number of American hating arab muslims) feel they can get away with(and they can) developing nuclear weapons, and don't have to worry about the U.S wiping them out. They know we don't have the will to fight another major war, and that we aren't desperate enough to drop a nuke.

 

However, this weapon, which it's effects are easily controlled, massive, cost effective, and have no long term damaging effects on a global scale,and the death induced would be painless one, would be perfect for the U.S to use, and the U.S could get away with using a weapon like this.

 

I think that would deter Iran and North Korea from developing nuclear weapons/and or terrorizing other nation states, if they knew we had a WMD that we could drop that we were willing to drop. As long as they know they can get away with terrorism against us, and as long as they think that we won't drop any major weapons, or go into any major wars, they'll keep on doing what they are doing.

[Heretic]

However' date=' this weapon, which it's effects are easily controlled, massive, cost effective, and have no long term damaging effects on a global scale,and the death induced would be [b']painless one[/b], would be perfect for the U.S to use, and the U.S could get away with using a weapon like this.

 

Exactly how do you know it's painless? How many of the people who died from your weapon can testify that this death was painless?

 

There's a lot I can believe but I think you're pushing it. Seriously though does this also run on AA batteries?

[Klaynos]

Well, not to seem racist, but I was actually hoping the United States would use it against the Middle East.

 

This line is so funny....

 

Do you have ANY idea how absured that sounds?

[padren]

Another way to look at the ethics is to ask what are the chances that others will develop it too, and the more time our government has it, the better defenses we can come up with to counter it, and prevent the loss of life should it ever be used on us.

 

Regarding your middle east comments, while I think some people will always need to be suppressed to keep them from being violent, blanket suppression by threats of force are never a good solution. They suppress acts of violence out of fear of retribution, but the pressure the supression creates leaks out in other ways.

That is one of the reasons why (generally) the more violently a leader suppresses his subjects, the more violent the inevitable change of power will be.

There are some geninue gripes that the middle east has with the US, and many that are based solely on extremist BS. Our tendancy to bunch the two types together in our own minds makes it easier for the extremists to latch their unreasonable causes to the reasonable ones.

[Kylonicus]

The weapon works in essence by putting someone to sleep. Except the difference between just putting someone to sleep is, this is a permanent sleep.

 

That's why I think it will be painless.

[Bluenoise]

Well, not to seem racist, but I was actually hoping the United States would use it against the Middle East. My view is that, nuclear weapons have horrible reprocussions, as they spread both dust and radioactive fallout across the entire world. This weapon has no such negative reprocussions, the only thing eliminated is life.

 

 

Ummmm yeahh....

 

I'd say developing an weapon to sell to a governemnt in the hopes of them using it for genocide, is a tad unethical....

 

[insane_alien]

couldn't the same effect be had by pumping nyquil into the water supply?

[Kylonicus]

Perhaps, but that's classified as terrorism, and the political fallout would be bad for the United States. This wouldn't be classified as terrorism, but would rather be classified as a means of war, that would(I think), have less political reprocussions.

 

Poisoning your enemies, is terrorism. Vaporizing your enemies is war.

 

The reason why one is considered more vile then the other, is if major states use it, then it gives smaller states an excuse to use it against the stronger states.

 

However, extremely powerful weapons are available to major states, whereas they are not available to smaller states. And so the major states, try to emphasize that more powerful weapons, are a less evil/despicable form of warfare then the means available to smaller states.

 

Ultimately favoring the major states. But I don't mind, I'm part of a major state.

[Callipygous]

terrorism is using tactics that are specifically designed to incite fear.

 

poisoning a population is no worse or better than vaporising them.

 

the ethical issue with this weapon your describing is that it kills indiscriminately. military, civilians, old and sick, young and healthy. that is what would cause your political backlash, not the specific means by which you do it.

[Kylonicus]

Theoretically, it could be targeted at an enemy. The whole, mass destruction thing, is just one of it's applications. So it could be targeted on local areas(such as army barracks).

 

Another application of this weapon(if done properly) would be to put the enemy to sleep, but not a permanent sleep. So you could in a sense, stun your enemy. All of your enemies would pass out, then you could take over the base with zero casualities on either side.

 

However, the stunning effect would actually require alot more resources, and wouldn't be eligible to be turned into a WMD.

[Rocket Man]

america already has such a thing as a neutron bomb, it only kills life, although lasting radioactive fallout is the big issue preventing their use. basically rips dna to shreds. take a look at the immediate after effects of hiroshima, same thing occurs.

your idea sounds interesting though, does it work through walls/kilometers of rock?

[scicop]

DUDE...get your self some science training, keep your idea to yourself and then go work for the DOD. Get some DARPA funding, and you're set.

[FreeThinker]

Well, not to seem racist, but I was actually hoping the United States would use it against the Middle East.

 

You can not be serious! What about all the woman and children that would day in the process? I hope you were joking...

[SmallIsPower]

Perhaps' date=' but that's classified as terrorism, and the political fallout would be bad for the United States. This wouldn't be classified as terrorism, but would rather be classified as a means of war, that would(I think), have less political reprocussions.

 

Poisoning your enemies, is terrorism. Vaporizing your enemies is war.

 

The reason why one is considered more vile then the other, is if major states use it, then it gives smaller states an excuse to use it against the stronger states.

[/quote']

 

 

Agreed, it's considered more vile if it's cheaper, and therefore more available to all countries. Chemical and biological weapons made war so cheap, that America lost its advantage. America can destroy any continent it wants conventionally (however, not occupy it), however because this can be trumped by several countries' nukes, is why weapons of mass destruction is considered so vile. It doesn't give America an advantage if say, Congo, could destroy America with it in 2012, so even for "National Security" purposes giving it to America is a bad idea.

[[Tycho?]]

Its not like this guy actually has a valid weapon design. Its just some crackpot idea.

 

Oh, it is valid? Then prove it.

[Callipygous]

']Its not like this guy actually has a valid weapon design. Its just some crackpot idea.

 

Oh' date=' it is valid? Then prove it.[/quote']

 

 

no no no.... he cant give away his genius ideas because one of us could run off and patent it before him!!

 

however, as has already been discussed in this thread, just ignore the fact that hes full of... something, and try discussing the ethics side of it (which dont require it to be real).

[YT2095]

what I`de like to know about this brainwave death-ray, is that if it justs puts folks to sleep, How come you thought Weapons 1`st instead of Surgical applications?

 

any Idiot can invent a 1000 ways to take a life, it takes someone really special to invent a way to Save a life!