From: Avatar Polymorph (avatarpolymorph@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Aug 18 2002 - 02:15:05 MDT
Anders Sandberg writes:
"Which are useless against suitcase nukes and anthrax. The
problem with "sysop shields" is that it is a single point of failure:
somehow the system has to prevent threats, but if it fails there is no other
defense."
Suitcase nukes and anthrax can't kill more than a few thousand max, just as
local bombers find it hard to kill more than a few hundred. Normally you get
I think around 40 bomb attempts per year per million people in a western
country, most unreported by self-censorship agreements with the relevant
govt.
I was thinking more about the general principle of sysop. Layered mechanisms
and failsafe are absolutely rational, particularly in our context. Sysop
itself is more a Singularity phenomena.
The US military system has moved towards a more protective scenario. Since
the bombing of Iraqi troops retreating from Kuwait which killed tens of
thousands in convoys and trenches (fuel air explosives I think mainly) the
US has steered clear of mass casualties, whether military or civiilian,
which I think is great. Most of the Gulf War and all of the Yugoslav or
Serbian war were great morally, with technology finally allowing precise
targetting. Such overwhelming victories are virtually unprecedented in
history.
Beyond tactical issues of protection, however, strategically in any real
sense the only military powers in the world are the US and Russia. China
with 300 nuclear weapons and the others don't count. No non-superpower
countries could vanquish a superpower because if backed into a corner they
could vaporize any army or military conglomeration or navy.
The US did the right thing by targetting the Taliban since clearly there was
a deal between the leadership of bin Landen and them, beyond the
intermarriage. The assasination of the leader of the Northern Alliance by
bin Laden was qui pro quo for the Sept 11 attacks. By removing the Taliban
the US has put govts on notice that if they provide nuclear weapons (i.e.
big ones, in containers or ships) they will be invaded and removed.
I think however the US has overreacted. The Taliban could not even operated
anti-aircraft guns (Pakistani officers did). Just because 20 guys with
cardboard cutter knives found a giant weakness (which had been left unfixed
for 20+ years, e.g. weak cockpit doors and no video cameras) doesn't mean
they are masterminds. By all means, eliminate the organization, but don't
sacrifice the democracy of hundreds of millions to the hatred of several
dozen maniacs who could barely fly with training. Terrorism has been with us
for centuries. It doesn't go away. Ask anyone in Africa about genocide.
Their situation has been far far worse than that of anyone in the US, bin
Laden or not. The number of dead there over 10 years from genocide is now
nearing that of the Jewish Holocaust. That doesn't disparage the US loss in
New York, but it puts it in a context that seems relevant to those in the
Third World.
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:12 MST