• By Lawrence M. Krauss

    Scientists throughout the country across a wide spectrum of fields, from biochemists to physicists, are bemoaning the potentially devastating impact on science and technology in the United […]

    • It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending.

      Conversely, then, the current administration and it’s tweeter in chief are working daily towards making it NOT worth defending. Just what the Russian regime might have wanted, if they had the choice. Oh, but they did, didn’t they?

    • maria melo #1
      Mar 30, 2017 at 8:27 pm

      Interestingly enough, I can aknowledge from a sociology text about War that some of the technology we use daily as the internet, refrigirators and common wrist watches for instance, were conceived for military purposes.

      Way back, as long ago as the ancient Greeks, scientific and engineering capabilities were valued by military adventurers, and by warring leaders.
      That’s why many early “scientists” could be outspoken against the religious establishments, because they were protected as assets by the local warlords, and even when captured by enemies were taken over and protected, if they would work for the new leaders!

      Werner von Braun is a recent example.

      Military airplanes are much more sofisticated, and military aircrafts will become common airplanes in futur perhaps. Indeed, “if you want peace, prepare for War”.

      Much of the Earth monitoring satellite technology which is decried by Trump and Co. was developed as spy satellites during the Cold War, – as were many of the rocket engines used to launch them.

      The downside of this (apart from the destruction caused by the wars), is that much of the research is classified as “top secret”, and kept for many years, from other researchers, and from civilian uses,, before it is eventually released, for constructive uses. Indeed, some civil applications (such as nuclear power-stations), were introduced as a respectable cover, to hide clandestine military developments.
      That is why those who used such tactics in the past, are now obsessed with obstructing other politically opposed nations, who are trying to develop their own nuclear industries or space programmes!

    • I have an idea for a work of fiction: an enemy nation/organisation, let’s say the Russians, have a long term plan to weaken the USA. To this end, they have a sleeper agent who (despite being somewhat dim and personally obnoxious) they groom with the hopes of reaching the presidency. With an unorthodox campaign, a little hacking and a lot of lies, their candidate comes out of nowhere and gets elected. He then sets about strategically weakening the USA by appointing reactionary ignoramuses in key positions, so that the USA’s position is fundamentally weakened on numerous fronts: environmental protections, global warming, biotech, education, etc.

      On second thoughts, requires too much suspension of disbelief.

    • To argue that scientific achievements in which we enjoy today, were not been possible without war is idiotic. To support funding wars, military and budget channeling in that direction is also idiotic from my point of view. Especially when there is a choice. One can finance peace, cooperation among people, among us and nature, health care, etc. There are enough hungry people in this world, and in my opinion it is responsibility for that is of all of us on this planet. How about saving environment from people angagement during their lust for money? No? But some people choose to finance wars. Obviously mentally deranged people like Trump. There is no reason one can not think that some scientific achievments could not arise from dealing with peace. Have they gave peace a chance? Lennon said long time ago “give peace a chance” and he was so right.

      But hey, it is more important to deprive people from culture and science, feed them with fears and economic instability so it would be easier to manipulate them. Typically terroristic act. I think, Trump move to cut down financing of culture and science is an act of institutional evil. Not surprised. I would like to see people (civil) organisations bypassing his idiotic laws and form and offer alternatives.

    • The New York Review Of Books

      Reply by Norman Mailer AUGUST 14, 2003 ISSUE

      To the Editors:

      […]Maybe we will do well to learn to live with terrorism as a chronic condition, an ongoing upheaval to all sorts of good hopes, plans, and projects. All the same, until it reaches the numbers of our annual automobile accidents (more than 40,000 mortalities), can we recognize that there may be worse things in store for our Republic than projected weapons of mass destruction (which are, after all, never easy to deliver), and one of them is the shameless exploitation of American perception?

      At present, the specter of fascism settling upon us remains just that, an exaggeration, a specter, but will we escape it if we are struck by economic miseries? That is the time when we will need to be at our best rather than gulled in thought and dulled in language by our reigning Doctors of Advertising Sciences. […]

      The answer may be that there are more important things to safeguard. What does it profit us if we gain extreme security and lose our democracy? Not everyone in Iraq, after all, was getting their hands and/or their ears cut off by Saddam Hussein. In the middle of that society were hordes of Iraqis who had all the security they needed even if there was no freedom other than the full-fledged liberty offered by dictators to be free to speak with hyperbolic hosannas for the leader. So, yes, there are more important things to safeguard than security and one of them is to protect the much-beleaguered integrity of our democracy. The final question in these matters suggests itself. Can leaders who lie as a way of life protect any way of life?

    • “Of course, one cannot eliminate terrorism altogether any more than one can wipe out an entire strain of bacteria through antibiotics. On the fringes, new, virulent, more impervious strains develop. Depredations, however, can be kept under some control, whereas war is bound to generate novel mutations of terrorism. Such, at least, is the theory here advanced.” — Mailer (2003)

    • That´s not a smart thing not to predict that you have to defend peace
      and prepare for war (where are your instincts?

      I don’t understand what instincts? If someone is in immediate danger of course they will defend themselves, but I think those “instincts” do not arise on predictions (in that case one act upon reason and they consciously plan arming and creating a climate of terror “just in case”). Artificially created conditions of danger by govenments are terrorist attacs on their own citizens in the first place (in my opinion). And we all know why they are creating instability and fear among population.

      I can see agression as defence is necessary, not a “fantasy”

      But surely only in immediate danger and not fictional one ; ). If one have delusions of persecution or that someone means to hurt one than he or she is an agressor towards someone else because this danger that he or she feels from others is just in his or her head (they are not real). If America think they have to make wars “just in case” they are terrible wrong in my opinion, and they are the one that are terrosrists. But this projection of evil (evil is always someone else 😉 ) is so typical for psychopats and evil in general. Or creating of an aggresor an illusion of a victim. In my opinion there are too many psychopats (read politician) with their dangerous delusions.

    • and one of them is the shameless exploitation of American perception?

      Lovely quotation! It is so difficult to make people more conscious how its government is manipulating them. Unfortunately. 🙁 This “exploitation of perception” by the govenment is something population must become more and more aware of in my opinion.

      but will we escape it if we are struck by economic miseries? That is
      the time when we will need to be at our best rather than gulled in
      thought and dulled in language by our reigning Doctors of Advertising

      Very well told.

      Can leaders who lie as a way of life protect any way of life?

      Answer is – No! And I am sad that people do not see this. There is nice book called “People of the lies” by psychoterapist M.S. Peck where he nicely shows that core thing about evil and evil people is their integral characteristic to lie (but Arendt, Fromm, Svendsen and others who studied evil also explain this 😉 ). Lies are antechamber of evil and its main tool, and in my opinion should be attacked or pointed out at any level.

    • No like button ATM.

      Alan #15. Like.

      Now we’re fucked over access the the biggest single tech market, yet again selling weapons is our fall back.

      Hell, deux points, because I can now.

    • Alan4discussion #15

      Interesting article. Thank you. You know, reading such “news” and such statements from politicians one can not believe what is reading, hahaha… I mean she is saying something that sounds important but essentially she is not saying anything. First reading this: “Theresa May has defended her trip to Saudi Arabia, saying its ties with the UK are important for security and prosperity “. It comes to me to ask – HOW and WHY exactly.?!

      Her general statements are not saying anything (in my opinion). And of course, they are designed as such. 😉

      “important for us in terms of security, they are importance for us in
      terms of defence and yes, in terms of trade. “But as I said when I
      came to the Gulf at the end of last year, Gulf security is our
      security and Gulf prosperity is our prosperity.” …”that everything we do is in our British national interest”

      And, look no explanation what does she mean by that. If I was journalist, would ask her: Well madam please tell exactly what do you mean by this. Why prosperity of Gulf is prosperity of GB, why their security means GB security, and what exactly are those “national interests”. Perhaps nation has a different seeing of “national interests”… did you ask citizens what they mean by national interests? They are nation after all.

      Oh… there is partial explanation as I see:

      “It’s in our British national interest to have good relations around
      the world so we can trade around the world – that brings jobs and
      prosperity to the UK,”

      But I would still ask her what are those good relations… perhaps after selling war lords some weapons, give little bit of “humanitarian help” ? To appear human, like they care, hahaha. 😉 Perhaps cost of that humanitarian help was only very, very small fraction of earnings on weapon selling. But it gave them image of someone who cares about human life. And I would ask her: can you give me an example of other good relations since you state that GB has to have good relations all around the world.

      Well, I couldn’t read it all (stopped at: Analysis – John Pienaar…) 🙁 Anyway, human lives are trade (including British)… as you said good and generous! Good and generous! Such nice people those politicians, hahaah 🙁