a questions that i always wanted to ask

this question is kind of appropriate for this section, sinces it to do with weapons

why do people/scienetists/tecnitions work and develop weapons that would ultimatly be used to take the lives of countless hundreds/thousends/millions

what motivates them

[note for mods]
feel free to move if its in the wronge section

[edit on 21-8-2006 by bodrul]

I think that it has something to do with not jinxing the excellent progress being had i.e. avoiding yet another 1990 and 1929 economic collapses. If you know anything about Microsoft than you already know just how hard actual innovation is for all large organizations to actually do.

Well, the argument I hear most often is that any weapon that can be used to attack someone can also be used to defend someone. The same gun that can be used to hold up a liquor store can also be used to prevent a rape, and so on...

That logic loses most of its appeal for me when it comes to weapons of mass destruction, like nuclear explosives, and chemical agents, which kill indiscriminately and can 'salt the earth' to boot. Of course, biological agents can be developed solely for the purpose of designing a defense against them, so research in that area could be justified as defensive.

I don't know, even the most defensive of weapons can be used as a component of an effective offense, so there's little in the way of weaponry that can be considered purely defensive, I would think. Even a shield can be used to smack someone in the face.

When you think of all the trillions of dollars, the great minds and endless work that has gone into producing more and more deadly weapons, you wonder what the world would be like if that energy had been put into solving the problems of the world instead. How has developing WMD's made the world safer? Of course it hasn't, it just continues the old game of 'we have more bombs than you so back off." Thats a great world to live in isn't it? Such a united species we are.

I mean you would've thought developing a weapon that, with the amounts stockpiled, could vapourize the entire planet probably many times over would be enough for our leaders. But no, they just keep going , wasting all this time, money and brainpower developing more...more death, more lethal weapons , more fear and danger.

So just think about if all that effort had gone towards developing new, EArth friendly power sources, or solutions to third world hunger and drity water etc. Every country needs defences but c'mon, not to these levels of insanity.

When you think of all the trillions of dollars, the great minds and endless work that has gone into producing more and more deadly weapons, you wonder what the world would be like if that energy had been put into solving the problems of the world instead.

If you think about it, one of the world's greatest problems is people.

Weapons solve the people problem.

Just sayin'...

i agree with the above posts. but you also have remeber that with the death destruction these weapons brings,it also gets used in the civillian world. Lasers,nuclear energy,rockets,even jet engines. Invent something peacefull,and it gets used for war. Invent something for war and it gets used for peacefull purposes.Its just that the latter takes a longer time to come around than the first one.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

When you think of all the trillions of dollars, the great minds and endless work that has gone into producing more and more deadly weapons, you wonder what the world would be like if that energy had been put into solving the problems of the world instead.

If you think about it, one of the world's greatest problems is people.

Weapons solve the people problem.

Just sayin'...

lol , i guess your right.

However a dreamer like me just envisions a world where money is spent on solving the problems as organically and emphathetically (a word?) as possible as apposed to just 'filling it full of lead'.

If all the endless weapons money was spent on more nurturing and universally productive technologies then perhaps having too many people wouldn't be such a problem. The possiblities of what we can do as a race is endless.....

Originally posted by spanishcaravan
Invent something for war and it gets used for peacefull purposes.Its just that the latter takes a longer time to come around than the first one.

Yes, and if only the priorities were reversed. But I think really with alot of it there hasn't been much in the way of civilian benefit. I mean for gods sake it you can split like one atom and make that sort of destructive energy out of something so small then why hasn't that energy been harnessed positively to support our draining of the planet.

Originally posted by bodrul
why do people/scienetists/tecnitions work and develop weapons that would ultimatly be used to take the lives of countless hundreds/thousends/millions

what motivates them?

It probably depends on the "people/scienetists/tecnitions" you ask.
For some it is purely a job - motivated by money and providing for oneself, others believe they are contributing to the security of their society and therefore see it as a noble endeavor.
No one in the "industry" sits around wringing their hands with an evil grin thinking "what can I do to contribute to the annihilation of mankind".

The answer is simple. Humankind is fundamentally stupid. Rather than enjoy the billions to one chance that we actually exist, we insist in forcing our religious/political/cultural viewpoints on people who have different religious/political/cultural viewpoints. Instead of saying "cool, you believe what you want to believe", people say "believe in what I believe or we'll kill you". Now this is obviously not the case for everyone, but it only takes one person with a weapon and a divine right to do something with it, and the other side, if they remain defenceless, die. Hence the need to arm oneself. It sucks, but it really is never going to change. In fact, once oil and water resources start disappearing, it is only going to get worse.

How nice would it be to wake up in the morning and know that absolutely no-one else in the world wants to kill you?

Yes, and if only the priorities were reversed. But I think really with alot of it there hasn't been much in the way of civilian benefit. I mean for gods sake it you can split like one atom and make that sort of destructive energy out of something so small then why hasn't that energy been harnessed positively to support our draining of the planet.

Because of money. We are capitalist. If it cost too much,or doesnt generate a considerable amount of profit then it doesnt happen. Capitalism has its benefits,but greed is its biggest downfall. Look at the fat bastard who is head of exxon mobil. There's no need to use oil any longer,but we continue to use it and strecth it out so they can make their 200% + increase in profits. Money,Money,Money is all it is.

Originally posted by intelgurl

Originally posted by bodrul
why do people/scienetists/tecnitions work and develop weapons that would ultimatly be used to take the lives of countless hundreds/thousends/millions

what motivates them?

No one in the "industry" sits around wringing their hands with an evil grin thinking "what can I do to contribute to the annihilation of mankind".

Speak for yourself! Bwa ha ha!

(scratches head) Ok, we do a lot of defense contracting work. Not everything we do, but a lot of it. I'm in here late working on some interface card prototypes that will be off to Rockwell as soon as I'm done testing them.

You see, not everything IS a weapon. Things may be PARTS of a weapon. But as a designer, I usually get a spec that says what they want in general, sometimes a few hints how they want to go about it, some idea of how big it should be etc.

If you're lucky, they'll have a concrete idea of what they want, some specs that say how it fits in with other stuff, maybe an example of the predecessor system and a biatch list about what they hated, maybe if you're real lucky, a contact that was the user of the previous system. This is usually what happens with SOCOM designs, sometimes with Marines.

If you're really UNlucky, it'll be for Navy, and you'll end up with so much paperwork from ONI that you'd rather gouge your eyes out that meet with that dweeby SOB that audits you and your SCIF on top of the crap you already have to endure.

But from my point of view, I usually don't see things like "we hope to see a death count of 10,500 enemy combatants per implementation!" and some artist's concepts of burnt broken bodies scattered around a smoking crater. It's more like, we want a really fast front end processor for some camera input, and it has to do this with the data at a minimum rate of that. Or, we need a battery pack that will store 21kWh, break up and fit into four ALICEs or RAPTORs, and if it takes a slug, it can't burst into flame.

In other words, it's a sub-system with a certain in and out. And it's usually a really fun design, the mil stuff has the budget to let you go mad, and they always want you to use the bleeding edge stuff. So, it's an enabler for you to get creative without worrying about every penny. It may actually make SENSE for you to get some freaky-assed cast beryllium heat sink, or silicon-on-sapphire 200 degree C opamp you've only seen the spec sheets of.

A lot of it you know the general idea of what it's going in, heck, we get to crawl around in the guts of a lot of it. But a lot of projects it's just sort of tough to perceive as a WMD or something, because there's just a lot of things that you'd have to smack someone over the head with to use as a weapon, like comm systems. And on a lot of stuff, you really don't have a clue what it goes in, at least not exactly.

Other things, well, they ARE weapons, and no doubts. Which is almost where I have to differ with Intelgrl, I DO enjoy those jobs, and probably more than the encrypted comm links or video pre-processors for targeting systems. No I don't sit around saying "die little brown muslim people! Mwa ha ha!", it's more like a feeling that whoever has to use your systems in combat is going to be able to rely on it because I'm going to do a damn fine job.

What I want to hear back from that isn't "well, we sure roasted a lot of Iranians with THAT one! HA HA HA!", it's more like, "we took the system through HALT/HASS. The entire rack came to pieces. But in the smoking rubble of the prime's system, your stuff was still running with no errors under a pile of boards and loose hard drives in the bottom of the test bay. Well done!" or "A lot of people got home alive because your comm system performed over and above the specs we set you, while every other system was crapping out in the heat"

Here's a question back to you, purely hypothetical. Let's say that there is a military project. It involves, let's go nuts here, antigravity. You can work on it. You can't discuss it, but you get to work on it. You'll never fly in one. You won't even get to watch. You can't brag about it to your buds over beers. But you can participate, if only a little bit. Do you say no? Would you not want to be part of that? Even if, say, it will one day be part of a military craft? I dunno, I don't have that Zen-like detachment to take a dump on that.

Engineers and physicists live to solve problems. The nature of the problem, that doesn't really seem to matter as much as getting to solve one of the big ones. Look at the history of the nuclear bomb. Full of philosophers and pacifists, but how many said "no, screw you I won't do it"...none? The lure was too big. You don't need to make twisted Mentats, just offer them a nearly unsolvable problem, a big budget and keep the distractions at bay.

Originally posted by bodrul
why do people/scienetists/tecnitions work and develop weapons that would ultimatly be used to take the lives of countless hundreds/thousends/millions

There's an old saying:

"God created man, Sam Colt made them equal."

www.answers.com...

But, you're question is really rhetorical, isn't it?

The thing is that any technology - no matter what it is - can and most likely will be used as a weapon. People are naturally manipulative - we survive by manipulating the environment around us. WE don't have hair thick or heavy enough to protect us from the cold - so we take it from animals that do (and use them for food, while we're at it), or we create our own form of hair to keep us warm. We can't practically take on and kill a cow with our bare hands (well, not most of us - but someone will probably succeed in proving me wrong - just to split hairs) - however, picking up that rock and throwing it gives us an added advantage. Just like someone may not have enough money to buy what they want - so they look for an alternate form of obtaining it - such as scams, robbery, etc.

So, naturally, if someone wants to kill someone else - they will figure out how to use what exists around them to accomplish this task.

That is why, sometimes, most technologies are better employed as a weapon, first, to keep such things out of the hands of the wrong people (or at least at first) without a counter.

Sort of like nuclear energy. Putting it into a reactor, rather than a bomb, would have been similar to the mentality you are suggesting. However, some other country would attempt to use that technology to build a bomb prior to our recognising it as a weapon and using it against us.

Employing it as a weapon, first, gives us the ability to use that weapon to prevent its spread to nations that will assuredly be irresponsible with them. Such as Iran.

Or, for people like me.... I want to build a particle cannon to go blow up stumps and hills of dirt in the back field - maybe the occasional bird.... It's the thrill of making a new way to make a loud noise and send dirt flying. Afterwards, thinking of a way to employ it in a constructive manner takes place....