Here's what I think is the most important part of the story: the US develops this revolutionary super-weapon, and some unscrupulous party gets their hands on it, leading to dire consequences. This isn't the first time something like this has happened, by the way. I'm beating the drum about nuclear weapons because they provide many examples of dire consequences, but there are other weapons and technologies we probably don't want falling into the wrong hands. For example, UAVs (drones). Right now, the United States has a substantial lead in drone technology over other countries, but it's naive to think that could never change. Despite the justifiable criticisms of how America employs drones, it has shown some level of restraint (such as mostly refraining from conducting strikes over major urban areas - see the two images below).
The MQ-9 Reaper can carry several different munitions, including an air-to-ground antitank missile. Imagine what one of those could do to a crowd of people in a major city. Do you think it's impossible that someone might give the order to do so eventually?
Here's what I'm getting at. The United States is pretty talented when it comes to creating new weapons, but it doesn't put a lot of thought into anything after that. This lack of planning eventually comes back to haunt us, because other countries or groups figure out how to copy our tech or make their own versions. It's arrogant to think that we're the only country smart enough to invent these things.
So what's the answer? Do we destroy these weapons once we realize the potential damage they could create, along with all the research behind them? That's a good thought. Imagine if the people spearheading the Manhattan Project demolished all the machinery and burned their notes right after the Trinity Test, or Fritz Haber destroyed his work in 1914. Wouldn't we all be better off? Not necessarily. Like I said earlier, it's arrogant to assume that nobody else can develop something. The US wasn't the only nation conducting atomic weapons research in the 1930s and 1940s; if it had unilaterally halted development on the A-bomb, what country would have been the first to develop one? Probably the Soviet Union. How different does the Cold War look if the USSR is the only country with this weapon of unprecedented destructive capability? Even the stolen NSA techno-weapon worked so well because the agency smugly assumed nobody else would discover the vulnerability in Microsoft's SMB protocol that it found. Oops.
The best solution I can come up with is to define what is or isn't permissible early on, when you're the only one in possession of this new weapon. The way you use the weapon creates a norm for the rest of the world on what's acceptable. At the same time, start crafting and implementing international laws and conventions to govern the use of this new weapon; so that there's a standard with a little more authority than an unofficial norm in place. None of these things are perfect, and nations (or people) can violate norms, laws, or conventions at will; but it's better than nothing. And getting ahead of the problem in this way is easier than rushing to play catch-up once the weapon is everywhere.
Finally, stop using the weapon the way a kid treats an expensive new toy on Christmas morning. Looking at you, United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment