Armageddon Science Post

I found the section on antimatter weapons to be particularly illustrative of some of the ‘weirdness’ associated with this whole discussion.  The speculative nature of antimatter technology represents a Zeitgeist of postmodern American consciousness.  I think it’s actually cute that anyone is even concerned about the technology being a threat.  During our discussion I and others mentioned the fictitious nature of the technology – how can one devise a weapon that would itself be destroyed on contact at the subatomic level (and unleash a cascade of unintended consequences, like destroying the user) when it comes into contact with the most basic fundamental subatomic constructs of the universe?  The mass media is partly responsible for these weird fears, true, with the popularity of sci-fi shows and movies that showcase fictional technologies such as this as if we're right around the corner from develping them (along with the ever-popular and equally untenable ‘singularity drive’), but every generation of Americans has had their bogeymen.  I think the fear of weapons such as these and talk of the ‘direction’ we’re heading in (as if humankind suddenly started inventing scary things in the twentieth century) reflects a mistrust of science that is characteristic of postmodernist academic and popular thought.  If everything is relative and all perspectives are valid because truth does not exist or is undiscoverable, then scientific endeavors become, at best, something to be laughed at during hipster wine party gatherings, and at worst, the end of all things to come.  This mistrust of science is hypocritical, of course; after all, without science, postmodernism (and all the postmodern comforts of society that exist as a result of science and therefore allow hipsters to complain about everything) would not exist.

I think this discussion is completely relevant to what we discuss in the social studies classroom.  Obviously a competent individual might discuss some of the more interesting technical jargon if he or she was knowledgeable, but one could also skim the surface of the issue and discuss it from a policy perspective with equal skill.  Plus, it’s kind of important to discuss things like ‘where society is heading’ – that’s our job as social studies teachers!

I wanted to respond to the question about nuclear weapons and whether or not their usage constitutes genocide, since I only managed to type out a haphazard reply in the chat window.  Nuclear weapons are tools of genocide only if they are used for genocide, just as a gun may be a murder weapon or a defensive weapon or a hunting tool depending on how it is used.  Genocide involves the massive extermination of an entire group of people because of their membership in the group identity under siege, and is perpetuated by a centralized power structure, such as a fascist state-ethnic apparatus.  Nuclear weapons, by contrast, have no agenda.  They may be used against military forces, population centers, production centers, etc, with no regard whatsoever to the ethnic, religious, or cultural ‘make-up’ of the inhabitants/targets, just as a gun could be used to kill an innocent bystander, a would-be rapist, or a deer.

The target of the nuclear strike also matters.  A nuclear weapon used against a civilian population center with little strategic value is a misuse of assets and a war crime.  However, are there ever civilians in war, particularly if the civilian populace is directly supporting the war machine economically and politically?  Soldiers cannot fight without resources from the home front – who in fact supplies those resources?

Finally, nuclear weapons are a successful deterrent from aggression by a major foreign power.  The wars we have been involved in since World War II have been bloody and unpleasant, but unremarkable compared to the scale of the conflicts of the Second World War.  Nuclear weapons ensure that such a war will not happen again, although they carry risks themselves and must be vigilantly protected.  Rogue agents could, in fact, come across an unsecure warhead (there are hundreds in the former satellite nations of the Soviet Union under poor guard) and use it to make a political or religious statement.  Every decision, then, must be made as if our fingers were hovering over the 'launch' button - with care and reverence for the awesome destructive force of the weapons and the horrors they unleash.