The threat of nuclear weapons is a very real threat in our world today.
Arguably though, nuclear and other such types of weapons instead of peace treaties and diplomacy truly protect nation-states from the threats of their enemies. Learning about the ghastly effects of nuclear bombs put all this new technology into perspective. The atomic bomb releases millions of times more energy than its chemical counterpart of TNT. Fallout and radiation last for decades. Effects are even as extreme as causing nuclear winter where soot and dirt go up into the atmosphere and block the sun. Some believe that because nuclear weapons are so heinous a weapon they would put a halt to war and forge peace among nations. Obviously this is not true.
Professor Walker mentioned an important point in class that I have heard before. Some nuclear weapons are just too powerful to use in warfare. One of the points of war is to handicap your enemies in order to make them surrender, not to completely annihilate them. By just watching the clips of Big Ivan during class, I was completely speechless seeing the utter destruction it would inflict. The mushroom cloud produced was tremendous. It would make no sense to use these huge weapons in war. Why spend so much money developing these types of weapons if they will never be used? To me, they don’t even seem to be a menace to other countries, because we would never use them for moral reasons. So what good are they?
Similarly, why keep any nuclear weapons? Regardless of the plethora of treaties such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, atomic warfare is still seen as a threat. I understand the idea that they can be used for intimidation. If we totally got rid of all nuclear weapons and other countries had them, I’m sure that the people United States would feel extremely vulnerable. In essence, nuclear weapons serve as our safety blanket. We are the "biggest and baddest nation" and we have the most. No matter what, governments think that nuclear weapons are one of the most important bargaining chips in diplomacy during conflict. However, it seems irrational that we keep threatening other nations with them. While the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened decades ago, their effects are still fresh in many people’s memories. Seeing pictures of melted watches and burnt bicycles, people’s everyday things and entire lives being destroyed, made me want to cry. I believe that many people feel the same way. I for one can’t understand what would justify the use of these weapons. There are just too many moral issues involved.
This type of war, particularly, is so appalling. So that brings me to my point, if so many people object to the use of weapons and still get upset thinking about their use in the past, why do countries around the world still use them as a means of intimidation? It just makes no sense. Are we really that caught up in the “military-industrial complex,” as Eisenhower warned? America keeps building up arsenals and disarmament doesn’t even seem to cross government officials’ minds. What is even more ironic is that while we are doing this, America and other countries are preaching that they develop nuclear weapons in “peace.”
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Atomic Euphoria (10/22)
It is interesting how the perception of atomic principles, radiation, and nuclear power changed throughout the 20th century. During wartime and production, the atomic bomb was seen as unleashing uncontrollable energy that would have detrimental effects on everything around it. After World War II and later into the Cold War era, debates over the great consequences that nuclear energy harbored gradually went away. These were replaced by views of the atom as helping, not hurting, civilization.
The atom was characterized as “obedient” and “friendly.” These images were not warlike at all. Honestly, it sounds like Americans began to think of anything nuclear as just as harmless and their dog. The atom was just as obedient and friendly as a dog, man’s new best friend. Ironically, in relation to my analogy, a National Geographic image shows a moveable Geiger Counter called “Fido.” As we have studied with the meltdowns of Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island, nuclear power and energy is anything but safe and controllable.
Companies and the government wanted to portray nuclear power as aiding Americans lives, instead of only potentially destroying them. In Project Plowshare, the government tried to show that atomic bombs could be used for farming to blow up fields cheaper than conventional techniques. This great cheap source of destructive power could be used for good and helping industry. Peaceful uses such as radiation treating cancer patients were made well-known. We still use such methods in medicine today. One thing that I found really funny but also odd was the fact that in all pictures the writers made a point to say that the handlers were well protected. You can even see the safety gear on or around them. However, the person or animal being treated had nothing protecting them from the radiation. So, while a doctor was well protected against gamma rays, his patient was not. How safe is that?
I learned so many interesting facts from the readings and class. General Electric actually contracted and built nuclear reactors. Even living in the “hometown” of GE, I never had a clue they were involved in that type of energy. I also learned how much public opinion influences what technology makes it. In these pictures, food is shown to be preserved by radiation. In today’s society, we would never do that. Public perception is that it is harmful and weird. This response is a little peculiar when I begin to think about how the public doesn’t even ask questions about including preservatives and trans fats in our foods to keep up their shelf life, even though these methods also have very hazardous health effects.
What is most interesting to take away from these articles is that the atom was for once seen as something peaceful. It could cure cancer, preserve food, supply energy, and employ people. In that day, the atom was thought to be limitless. It could extend into all realms of life, as we have seen. However, we now know in hindsight that nuclear applications could not be a panacea for all the problems in society. While its power might be used to solve some problems, the ills it also causes cannot be forgotten.
The atom was characterized as “obedient” and “friendly.” These images were not warlike at all. Honestly, it sounds like Americans began to think of anything nuclear as just as harmless and their dog. The atom was just as obedient and friendly as a dog, man’s new best friend. Ironically, in relation to my analogy, a National Geographic image shows a moveable Geiger Counter called “Fido.” As we have studied with the meltdowns of Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island, nuclear power and energy is anything but safe and controllable.
Companies and the government wanted to portray nuclear power as aiding Americans lives, instead of only potentially destroying them. In Project Plowshare, the government tried to show that atomic bombs could be used for farming to blow up fields cheaper than conventional techniques. This great cheap source of destructive power could be used for good and helping industry. Peaceful uses such as radiation treating cancer patients were made well-known. We still use such methods in medicine today. One thing that I found really funny but also odd was the fact that in all pictures the writers made a point to say that the handlers were well protected. You can even see the safety gear on or around them. However, the person or animal being treated had nothing protecting them from the radiation. So, while a doctor was well protected against gamma rays, his patient was not. How safe is that?
I learned so many interesting facts from the readings and class. General Electric actually contracted and built nuclear reactors. Even living in the “hometown” of GE, I never had a clue they were involved in that type of energy. I also learned how much public opinion influences what technology makes it. In these pictures, food is shown to be preserved by radiation. In today’s society, we would never do that. Public perception is that it is harmful and weird. This response is a little peculiar when I begin to think about how the public doesn’t even ask questions about including preservatives and trans fats in our foods to keep up their shelf life, even though these methods also have very hazardous health effects.
What is most interesting to take away from these articles is that the atom was for once seen as something peaceful. It could cure cancer, preserve food, supply energy, and employ people. In that day, the atom was thought to be limitless. It could extend into all realms of life, as we have seen. However, we now know in hindsight that nuclear applications could not be a panacea for all the problems in society. While its power might be used to solve some problems, the ills it also causes cannot be forgotten.
The American Atomic Bomb, Atomic Energy Commission, and McCarthyism (10/8)
The era of the atomic bomb can be characterized by much mistrust. Americans believed that the Germans would make an atomic bomb first. Americans felt like the Communists were invading every part of the United States. We thought that our government’s top-secret agencies were full of spies. In light of these fears, officials in the United States made sure we were as strong and powerful a country that we said we were.
Mistrust and suspicion of other countries’ weapon arsenals and political tactics were surely driving factors behind the creation of the atomic bomb. For example, one of the questions in American physicists minds was “Could the Germans have built an atomic bomb?” Discussions at Farm Hall gave us insight into what the leading physicists in Germany were thinking. These discussions are very frank and are so valuable because they were recorded without the subjects knowing. Oddly, but very much with a nationalist fervor, the Germans thought that they were ahead of the Americans in their development of an atomic bomb. It is the tendency of every country, however, to think that it is the best at everything.
However, no one truly knew how evolved the Germans bomb project was. No matter if it was completed or far from working, the potential of a rival obtaining the technology before the US was frightening. Everyone was caught up in war fever, including Albert Einstein, a pacifist who lent his name to the Manhattan Project in hopes to build the atomic bomb. It is easy to follow our emotions and forget the reasons behind them and the effects of them. Instead, we just get caught up, not taking even a second to stop and think. This is a large part of what happened with the atomic bomb. The scientists seem to justify their actions as they’re going along, instead of first trying to figure out why they want to or should build an atomic bomb.
I was very intrigued by this concept of mistrust, which I felt permeated all parts of American life during this time. With McCarthyism, the driving force of mistrust behind everything became even more apparent. It certainly motivated scientists to create and use a destructive atomic bomb, the likes of which the world had never seen. The arms race was thus sparked. This suspicion affected the lives of regular people just as much. After reading, I called my dad and asked him questions concerning the “A-bomb,” as he calls it. He was born in 1952 after the development of the atomic bomb and through the conflicts of the Cold War. He is still alive in 2007 amongst current nuclear issues. With his responses, it is easy to see how even ordinary Americans were in a state of fear and doubt. He was truly afraid of nuclear disaster. When he was in grade school, the school conducted fire, air raid, and nuclear drills on a daily basis. They hid under school desks, waiting for the signal to move to the closest fallout shelter. This was more important after the launch of Sputnik by the Russians when he as well as others believed nuclear weapons could be launched from space. Listening to my dad, it is so clear that he was scared to death as a child. This fear was so deeply instilled that my dad, to this day, still believes that we were correct in using the atomic bomb against the Japanese and promotes the development of nuclear arms. In his words, “We have to maintain it [nuclear weapons], of course, because we surely can’t predict the future, or what knucklehead country might attack us, even thought we never mention this when dealing with other nations.” This type of thinking fueled the creation of the atomic bomb and is pertinent in nuclear issues in the present.
Mistrust and suspicion of other countries’ weapon arsenals and political tactics were surely driving factors behind the creation of the atomic bomb. For example, one of the questions in American physicists minds was “Could the Germans have built an atomic bomb?” Discussions at Farm Hall gave us insight into what the leading physicists in Germany were thinking. These discussions are very frank and are so valuable because they were recorded without the subjects knowing. Oddly, but very much with a nationalist fervor, the Germans thought that they were ahead of the Americans in their development of an atomic bomb. It is the tendency of every country, however, to think that it is the best at everything.
However, no one truly knew how evolved the Germans bomb project was. No matter if it was completed or far from working, the potential of a rival obtaining the technology before the US was frightening. Everyone was caught up in war fever, including Albert Einstein, a pacifist who lent his name to the Manhattan Project in hopes to build the atomic bomb. It is easy to follow our emotions and forget the reasons behind them and the effects of them. Instead, we just get caught up, not taking even a second to stop and think. This is a large part of what happened with the atomic bomb. The scientists seem to justify their actions as they’re going along, instead of first trying to figure out why they want to or should build an atomic bomb.
I was very intrigued by this concept of mistrust, which I felt permeated all parts of American life during this time. With McCarthyism, the driving force of mistrust behind everything became even more apparent. It certainly motivated scientists to create and use a destructive atomic bomb, the likes of which the world had never seen. The arms race was thus sparked. This suspicion affected the lives of regular people just as much. After reading, I called my dad and asked him questions concerning the “A-bomb,” as he calls it. He was born in 1952 after the development of the atomic bomb and through the conflicts of the Cold War. He is still alive in 2007 amongst current nuclear issues. With his responses, it is easy to see how even ordinary Americans were in a state of fear and doubt. He was truly afraid of nuclear disaster. When he was in grade school, the school conducted fire, air raid, and nuclear drills on a daily basis. They hid under school desks, waiting for the signal to move to the closest fallout shelter. This was more important after the launch of Sputnik by the Russians when he as well as others believed nuclear weapons could be launched from space. Listening to my dad, it is so clear that he was scared to death as a child. This fear was so deeply instilled that my dad, to this day, still believes that we were correct in using the atomic bomb against the Japanese and promotes the development of nuclear arms. In his words, “We have to maintain it [nuclear weapons], of course, because we surely can’t predict the future, or what knucklehead country might attack us, even thought we never mention this when dealing with other nations.” This type of thinking fueled the creation of the atomic bomb and is pertinent in nuclear issues in the present.
Werner Heisenberg as “Goodwill Ambassador” (9/24)
I really enjoyed the way Walker wrote about history in his book Nazi Science: Myth, Truth, and the German Atomic Bomb. He wrote from a different perspective that what I am used to. In history, just as in fairy tales, it is easy to want heroes and villains. History is so much simpler when people are viewed as being good or bad and reasons for actions are cut and dry. However, this is not the reality. Walker focuses on the humanity, ambivalence, and motives of historical figures. It’s hard to accept that prominent figures sometimes don’t know what they’re doing. I would have never thought that cooperation with the Nazis could ever be “ambiguous and ambivalent” as Walker writes that it could be (123).
The one ambivalent historical figure that I learned about was Werner Heisenberg. It was extremely fascinating to me to learn about his political and scientific activity. Heisenberg was used as part of political propaganda for the National Socialist state. It is interesting to see how party officials were trying to portray Germany in a positive light, especially in countries that it occupied or conquered. Heisenberg’s career was traveling to these lands and speaking of German accomplishments in physics. Heisenberg was exploited by the Nazi state, even though he was previously labeled a “White Jew” by “German” physicists such as Stark.
Last spring I took a class on the Holocaust with Professor Berk, but we never covered this aspect of the German state. In that class we talked about propaganda campaigns against the Jews, characterizing them as dirty, sexual, subhuman beings. I never knew that propaganda was also used not only to bring down Jewish citizens but to bolster the German state. In particular, achievements in science served as a form of propaganda. In this case especially it is easy to see how linked politics and science can actually be.
While reading, I had to ask myself why Heisenberg participated in any of this. While he might have been ambivalent politically during this intense time of Hitler’s dictatorship, wasn’t he smart enough to know that he was being exploited by the Nazi state? Was he ok with that? He termed himself as being part of the resistance, instead of collaborating with Hitler. I found his justification interesting. He said that while he did not outwardly speak against Hitler, he tried to make real change by working within the system and impeding certain movements (Walker 123, 177). He did more than others who “passively” resisted by only having an “inner emigration,” waiting for the government to change (123, 177). In contrast, Heisenberg believes that he was quite “active” in his opposition, even though we have very different notions of what that means today.
The one ambivalent historical figure that I learned about was Werner Heisenberg. It was extremely fascinating to me to learn about his political and scientific activity. Heisenberg was used as part of political propaganda for the National Socialist state. It is interesting to see how party officials were trying to portray Germany in a positive light, especially in countries that it occupied or conquered. Heisenberg’s career was traveling to these lands and speaking of German accomplishments in physics. Heisenberg was exploited by the Nazi state, even though he was previously labeled a “White Jew” by “German” physicists such as Stark.
Last spring I took a class on the Holocaust with Professor Berk, but we never covered this aspect of the German state. In that class we talked about propaganda campaigns against the Jews, characterizing them as dirty, sexual, subhuman beings. I never knew that propaganda was also used not only to bring down Jewish citizens but to bolster the German state. In particular, achievements in science served as a form of propaganda. In this case especially it is easy to see how linked politics and science can actually be.
While reading, I had to ask myself why Heisenberg participated in any of this. While he might have been ambivalent politically during this intense time of Hitler’s dictatorship, wasn’t he smart enough to know that he was being exploited by the Nazi state? Was he ok with that? He termed himself as being part of the resistance, instead of collaborating with Hitler. I found his justification interesting. He said that while he did not outwardly speak against Hitler, he tried to make real change by working within the system and impeding certain movements (Walker 123, 177). He did more than others who “passively” resisted by only having an “inner emigration,” waiting for the government to change (123, 177). In contrast, Heisenberg believes that he was quite “active” in his opposition, even though we have very different notions of what that means today.
Johannes Stark and the “Aryan Physics” Movement in Germany (9/21)
The time leading up to and during World War II was characterized by an “Aryan” movement in Germany. The concept of what constituted “Aryan” changed depending upon the context it was used in. For example, in relation to race, an Aryan person was a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed, German. When the government tried to “Aryanize” the country in racial policies, any other nationalities and darker-skinned people were at a risk of losing their rights. This was especially the case for Jews. In relation to commodities, an Aryan product was something that was seen as being superior or the best. Thus, anything produced by non-Aryans was labeled as inferior. In relation to science, Aryan physics was characterized as being “pure” and conservative. The radical theories produced especially by Jews were discredited during the Aryanization of science.
The Aryan Physics Movement in Germany led by Johannes Stark was the topic of today’s reading. This movement sought to discredit and alienate any theories or physicists who proposed new research. These alienated scientists tended to be of Jewish background. For example, Albert Einstein and his theory of relativity were not accepted. Deutsche Physik would only promote certain kinds of science, that is, the more conservative types (Walker 13).
It is quite apparent how race was not the determining factor is what made physics “Aryan.” In my opinion, Stark determined what constituted “Aryan” and bent this definition to suit his purposes. He personally felt threatened by the new science of the period. Thus, he did anything to suppress modern physicists, including terming them non-Aryan. The reason for this is that he did not want to lose his position of power during changing times. It seems that Stark was suffering from an inferiority complex. Throughout his career, he did not receive the recognition he wanted for his work. By endorsing himself and his colleagues while estranging his opposition, he hoped to reign supreme in German physics.
We will and have seen this trend throughout history. Later in the course, we learned about how Robert J. Oppenheimer was put on trial for past deeds that he had already been cleared of. The point of the trial of this prominent scientific figure was to utterly humiliate him and remove him from the nuclear physics community. Through the reading, it seemed like no one really questioned the reasons why he was brought to trial. Likewise, not many people asked questions about the motives of Johannes Stark in isolating a large part of the physics community at the time. What it all boils down to is that divisions in science are not really about science at all. Everyone, especially Stark, wants fame and is out there for themselves. It is hard to check the egos of great public figures. It is reasons like these that make it imperative to examine why certain things happened in history and the true motives behind them.
The Aryan Physics Movement in Germany led by Johannes Stark was the topic of today’s reading. This movement sought to discredit and alienate any theories or physicists who proposed new research. These alienated scientists tended to be of Jewish background. For example, Albert Einstein and his theory of relativity were not accepted. Deutsche Physik would only promote certain kinds of science, that is, the more conservative types (Walker 13).
It is quite apparent how race was not the determining factor is what made physics “Aryan.” In my opinion, Stark determined what constituted “Aryan” and bent this definition to suit his purposes. He personally felt threatened by the new science of the period. Thus, he did anything to suppress modern physicists, including terming them non-Aryan. The reason for this is that he did not want to lose his position of power during changing times. It seems that Stark was suffering from an inferiority complex. Throughout his career, he did not receive the recognition he wanted for his work. By endorsing himself and his colleagues while estranging his opposition, he hoped to reign supreme in German physics.
We will and have seen this trend throughout history. Later in the course, we learned about how Robert J. Oppenheimer was put on trial for past deeds that he had already been cleared of. The point of the trial of this prominent scientific figure was to utterly humiliate him and remove him from the nuclear physics community. Through the reading, it seemed like no one really questioned the reasons why he was brought to trial. Likewise, not many people asked questions about the motives of Johannes Stark in isolating a large part of the physics community at the time. What it all boils down to is that divisions in science are not really about science at all. Everyone, especially Stark, wants fame and is out there for themselves. It is hard to check the egos of great public figures. It is reasons like these that make it imperative to examine why certain things happened in history and the true motives behind them.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mutually Assured Destruction (11/9)
When we look back in history, we find certain things intriguing, odd, rational, or the like based on our knowledge of the event. I find it funny that we look back on people during the 1950s and 1960s who built fallout shelters and prepared for nuclear war as hysterical. If people today go crazy preparing for simple snowstorms by raiding supermarkets, why does it seem ridiculous that people in the past prepared for nuclear war? Viewing the very damaging effects of nuclear weapons, doesn’t doing anything to protect yourself make sense? I think the idea of fallout shelters and preparing for the worst was good. In fact, the basement of my church at home is a fallout shelter. The yellow and black radioactive signs are still posted above the doorways even though the outward threat and fear of a nuclear war has dissipated a bit since the Cold War. People at the time, however, thought otherwise. Public opinion was that all hope was lost if a nuclear war started. There was no surviving the severely injurious damage done to both yourself and your surrounding. In essence, why even bother? People who did make fallout shelters seemed to be weird.
Reading about how people thought their neighbors were essentially nutcases if they tried to protect themselves reminded me of a movie called Blast from the Past with Alicia Silverstone and Brendan Fraser that I watched years ago (a few pieces of information were read and paraphrased from www.imdb.com to refresh my memory). Brendan Fraser is the son of a nuclear physicist, played by Christopher Walken, during the Cold War period. After a scare on television from the Cuban Missile Crisis and increasing tensions between the United States and Soviet Union, the family runs into the fully stocked fallout shelter and is stuck there for 35 years. Fraser’s character Adam emerges and falls in love with Alicia Silverstone, a beautiful girl who helps him survive in the modern world. Even after the family rejoins the modern world and the two main characters are married, the father believes that the Soviet Union has taken a political move to fake their own collapse to put their enemies into a lull while they rebuild their forces. Functioning off of this fear, he starts constructing a new fallout shelter “just in case.”
While this story is obviously fantastical and funny, but it reminded me greatly of what we have been reading and talking about. Hysteria during the Cold War period and reliance on technology caused the scientist father in the movie to create a state-of-the-art fallout shelter and run there at the first sign of warning. I believe that this is an understandable behavior for the time it was set. During the 1960s and even today our military world functions through a Mutually-Assured Destruction policy. Countries try to get their nuclear arsenal as developed as possible so there will be no threat of attack. The reason for this is that if someone strikes first, that country can have a return strike with the same or much greater force. Thus, this fear keeps countries and political leaders from engaging in a nuclear war. I liken this nuclear game to chicken, where two cars drive as fast as they can at each other, hoping the other car will swerve first. Normally this game that can surely lead to death does not because both parties “chicken out” before they collide. This is much like the nuclear policy where many countries threaten and seem to almost go to war, but no one actually strikes. If this is the situation of today’s world, after many peace treaties and nuclear proliferation bands, imagine what it was like in America decades ago. Living in such an unsure world during the 1960s where technology was new, leaders were strong, and suspicions were high, anything could happen.
Reading about how people thought their neighbors were essentially nutcases if they tried to protect themselves reminded me of a movie called Blast from the Past with Alicia Silverstone and Brendan Fraser that I watched years ago (a few pieces of information were read and paraphrased from www.imdb.com to refresh my memory). Brendan Fraser is the son of a nuclear physicist, played by Christopher Walken, during the Cold War period. After a scare on television from the Cuban Missile Crisis and increasing tensions between the United States and Soviet Union, the family runs into the fully stocked fallout shelter and is stuck there for 35 years. Fraser’s character Adam emerges and falls in love with Alicia Silverstone, a beautiful girl who helps him survive in the modern world. Even after the family rejoins the modern world and the two main characters are married, the father believes that the Soviet Union has taken a political move to fake their own collapse to put their enemies into a lull while they rebuild their forces. Functioning off of this fear, he starts constructing a new fallout shelter “just in case.”
While this story is obviously fantastical and funny, but it reminded me greatly of what we have been reading and talking about. Hysteria during the Cold War period and reliance on technology caused the scientist father in the movie to create a state-of-the-art fallout shelter and run there at the first sign of warning. I believe that this is an understandable behavior for the time it was set. During the 1960s and even today our military world functions through a Mutually-Assured Destruction policy. Countries try to get their nuclear arsenal as developed as possible so there will be no threat of attack. The reason for this is that if someone strikes first, that country can have a return strike with the same or much greater force. Thus, this fear keeps countries and political leaders from engaging in a nuclear war. I liken this nuclear game to chicken, where two cars drive as fast as they can at each other, hoping the other car will swerve first. Normally this game that can surely lead to death does not because both parties “chicken out” before they collide. This is much like the nuclear policy where many countries threaten and seem to almost go to war, but no one actually strikes. If this is the situation of today’s world, after many peace treaties and nuclear proliferation bands, imagine what it was like in America decades ago. Living in such an unsure world during the 1960s where technology was new, leaders were strong, and suspicions were high, anything could happen.
Wrapping Up the Course (11/11)
At first I believed that physics and politics only intersected during wartime, however I am beginning to see how they are more intertwined on a daily basis. It is surprising how much science and technology are involved in politics. In today’s world, it seems like these two separate areas are one in the same.
In this class, it was interesting to study the progression of certain technologies and see how they were used by governments and peoples during the time. Governments are still using nuclear technologies and bombs to influence policy. These issues and entanglements are still happening in our world. For example, we briefly discussed one class how the chemical society wanted to exclude members from Iran. Is this fair or legal? What if Iranians are naturalized in other countries? Would they count as working for America for instance or Iran? Should our politic situation in these countries really affect such a prestigious scientific organization? In this case, sometimes politics extends too far into things. Just like the atomic bomb was made to protect our national security during the 1940s and decisions were rashly made, we have new bills that limit our privacy for the sake of “national security,” such a vague phrase. It is surely fascinating how much of a difference there is in science when politics are used by leaders to get their way.
When I first signed up for this course, I didn’t know quite what to expect. I was still unsure as well because the title “Physics and Politics” seemed a little vague. Looking back over my experiences throughout the course, I realize that this material was aptly named. The world we live in is shaped by the interaction of physics and politics of countries.
In this class, it was interesting to study the progression of certain technologies and see how they were used by governments and peoples during the time. Governments are still using nuclear technologies and bombs to influence policy. These issues and entanglements are still happening in our world. For example, we briefly discussed one class how the chemical society wanted to exclude members from Iran. Is this fair or legal? What if Iranians are naturalized in other countries? Would they count as working for America for instance or Iran? Should our politic situation in these countries really affect such a prestigious scientific organization? In this case, sometimes politics extends too far into things. Just like the atomic bomb was made to protect our national security during the 1940s and decisions were rashly made, we have new bills that limit our privacy for the sake of “national security,” such a vague phrase. It is surely fascinating how much of a difference there is in science when politics are used by leaders to get their way.
When I first signed up for this course, I didn’t know quite what to expect. I was still unsure as well because the title “Physics and Politics” seemed a little vague. Looking back over my experiences throughout the course, I realize that this material was aptly named. The world we live in is shaped by the interaction of physics and politics of countries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)