This trimester is slowly coming to a close, and I feel that it was only yesterday that I stepped into this class without a clue as to what to expect. I have expanded my physics and historical knowledge in terms of international science problems and inventions, as well as, have a greater understanding of various physics concepts. Initially, I had an unsure feeling about this class as I am not a strong physics student, but I slowly learned that I was able to grasp concepts and now I have a better understanding of how the world works. In terms of history, I have never really learned about international history in depth especially in terms of Russia. Russia and the US have been fighting a scientific and political battle for many years. One of the most interesting pieces of information that I learned was about Albert Einstein's impact on science and politics. I never saw him as a political leader or involved with history, but rather just a man who invents thing. His political stances were quite controversial in terms of him being pro Israel. He was also quite controversial because he was Jewish in Germany at the beginning of the "Aryan Physics" era.
Heisenberg was another scientist who had a difficult time trying to get his peers to respect him and listen to his scientific innovations. One of his greatest contributions to physics was the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which stated that it is impossible to precisely measure two measurables such as position and speed at the same point in time. This is in contradiction to classical physics because we have always believed that we can measure everything at a given moment, and there are no unanswered questions in physics. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle proves this notion wrong. Throughout this course I have learned about the physics of everyday interaction and now I look at everything from a new perspective.
This week one of our readings was George Bush's State of the Union Address and the other was U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5, 2003 address to the U.N. Security Council. In both speeches they talked about Iraq. President Bush's speech was interesting because he talks about everything he has accomplished a few short months after 9/11, and his speech seems uplifting to the common American. He talks about terrorists who we captured, and how the American troops freed innocent Afghans. He also mentions that the government found out that the enemy has diagrams of our nuclear power plants and making chemical bombs. His tone makes it seem that through his leadership we will fight this war on terrorism and with the government's hard work we have arrested tons of terrorists. The world is becoming a better place with the persistent action of the government. He also talks about weapons of mass destruction and his goal is to get rid of them. Bush wants to increase military spending in order to deter Iraqi production of weapons of mass destruction. Bush pledges to win the war, protect the homeland, and revive the economy, but now from a current perspective one can laugh at his pledges. I believe that he has successfully accomplished one of those, which is to protect the homeland. We have been in Iraq for what seems like an eternity and we have not proven anything except that we are destroying their land and destroying many innocent lives. The Iraq situation is almost analogous to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty situation in Europe. In both cases we want to deter nuclear weapons and are trying to find the best ways to defeat the enemy. In the Iraq War we are trying to get other countries to support us and aid us in fighting this war. Similarly, for the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty the US wanted to get specific countries on their side to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. It seems that we have always been involved in trying to stop the potential of having a nuclear war. In terms of Colin Powell's address he spoke about Resolution 1441, which was to disarm Iraq of its nuclear weapons. In our efforts to stop the war on terror we have given Iraq multiple opportunities to comply, but nothing has worked. His speech talks about how the US has given Iraq many chances, but they have been reluctant to do anything, thus we must take stern measures. His speech also talks about how we are not only worried about the weapons, but what terrorists can do with these weapons who will use it against innocent people. He denotes a very strong message in his speech; that being the American people and government will not stop until Saddam is stopped and the US can't run the risk of the American people being hurt. Throughout his speech, as well as, throughout Bush's speech his words are strong and puts up a fierce facade for his audience. From the start of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and continuing to the present time, we have had a strong stance against other countries and nuclear weapons, as we are fearful of the destruction that can be done to our country.
In terms of politics and history, I have learned how various presidents have dealt with international conflict and how different scientists have dealt with oppression and being ousted from their science communities. For not being a science person, I never realized how great a role science plays in the international community, and without one country essentially the entire link is broken. International relations are key in every discipline, not just politics which was always my assumption. Of course political international relations affects history and how things are done, but every country is reliant on each other for information. This class has showed me the extent to which the country is a global community and has opened my eyes up to thinking of science in a whole new way.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Thursday, November 8, 2007
The Decisions Leaders Have to Make
Leaders have to make detrimental choices in times of war. The issue of defense is a tough problem that leaders have to grapple with. At one end, they need to do what is in the best interest for the country and the other viewpoint is to do what is best for humanity. War is always a problem in terms of ethics. Leaders often have a hard time separating their interests from what is best for the country. Specific international policies are created for the purpose of war, so that the leader's interests don't spiral out of hand, and there doesn't evolve a full out world war. It is often hard to find a happy medium solution between countries as we have seen during the Cuban Missile Crisis and during the Cold War. Also, it is very hard to fathom how much money our government puts into the military budget. We are always trying to develop new weapons and out do other countries. War is not necessarily a good thing, so to see that our government is extremely concerned about weapons and war, is very disheartening to an individual.
There is always a possibility that the other side will attack, and then it comes down to who has the bigger weapons. Leaders have to try and predict what the other side is going to do and sometimes have to make rash decisions. They have to grapple with trying to figure out what is best for the country, and their citizens. Sometimes people forget that weapons have other side effects aside from killing a population; they can also destroy homes and land which make it impossible for a country to rebuild after disaster. Survivability is an important topic that leaders have to consider; is my population going to survive after a nuclear attack? In the Nuclear Age Reader article, it said that when people heard of a possible attack they did not run out and get bottled water and supplies. If this situation occurred today, people would be running to the stores and loading up on supplies. In the case of 9/11, when we had high terrorism warnings, duck tape was flying off the shelves and people were stocking up on bottled water and canned soup. It was comical looking back at this instance, and it depicts how easily society believes authority. The government was making requests to get duck tape and wood, and people didn't question it, but rather ran out and got the supplies. As a citizen, I would feel better if the government funded some of these safety precautions instead of pumping all of the money into the military. In a way, wartime is a huge propaganda stunt for the government because society is so vulnerable and fearful, they will believe anything. People will waste money on superfluous things; no wonder there is always an economic bomb during wartime. In the case of the Cuban Missile Crisis the government made society worried about the effects of an attack and spurred the fallout shelter campaign. If the government was so worried about building shelters, then they should have contributed to the cause and given money to build them instead of putting all of it toward military spending.
There is always a possibility that the other side will attack, and then it comes down to who has the bigger weapons. Leaders have to try and predict what the other side is going to do and sometimes have to make rash decisions. They have to grapple with trying to figure out what is best for the country, and their citizens. Sometimes people forget that weapons have other side effects aside from killing a population; they can also destroy homes and land which make it impossible for a country to rebuild after disaster. Survivability is an important topic that leaders have to consider; is my population going to survive after a nuclear attack? In the Nuclear Age Reader article, it said that when people heard of a possible attack they did not run out and get bottled water and supplies. If this situation occurred today, people would be running to the stores and loading up on supplies. In the case of 9/11, when we had high terrorism warnings, duck tape was flying off the shelves and people were stocking up on bottled water and canned soup. It was comical looking back at this instance, and it depicts how easily society believes authority. The government was making requests to get duck tape and wood, and people didn't question it, but rather ran out and got the supplies. As a citizen, I would feel better if the government funded some of these safety precautions instead of pumping all of the money into the military. In a way, wartime is a huge propaganda stunt for the government because society is so vulnerable and fearful, they will believe anything. People will waste money on superfluous things; no wonder there is always an economic bomb during wartime. In the case of the Cuban Missile Crisis the government made society worried about the effects of an attack and spurred the fallout shelter campaign. If the government was so worried about building shelters, then they should have contributed to the cause and given money to build them instead of putting all of it toward military spending.
The game of war is one of risk and predictions. You have to always be on your toes and guess when and how the enemy is going to strike. Should we do a first strike launch or wait until the enemy does something to us and then retaliate? The problem with first strike initiative is that the second strike could be worse and once you strike there is not going back. Leaders have to always be quick on their feet and try to do what is in the best interest for themselves as well as the country. Once a war starts, it is hard to stop it and one might think the enemy doesn't have the capability to destroy them, when in actuality they do, then what happens? You can't rewind time, and for some of history, including the current war that we are in, I feel that leaders wish they had a remote control so that they could undo their mistakes.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy
The readings for this week, start off with assessing the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear reactors from the viewpoints of two scientists. Edward Teller asks the government to look at the safety of the reactors and wants an advisory committee to be formed in order to regulate and oversee the nuclear reactors. On the contrary, Weinberg sees nuclear reactors as advantageous to society, and believes that they are as risky as any other scientific invention. Throughout history, society has always looked at nuclear power plants as a huge hazard to the environment and safety of society. This article enlightened me that the risk of a power plant being blown up or having a meltdown is as common as anything else that were to happen on the earth ( a hurricane, earthquake, getting hit by a car etc.). People automatically think that nuclear reactors will illicit radioactive particles that can kill them, which is true, but the amount of radioactivity that it takes to cause cancer is more then is given off by the reactors. People don't really think in perspective of how dangerous something really is and is the danger has a realistic effect on their life. Essentially, anyone can get cancer from the sun, standing in front of the microwave etc. I think that society has been brainwashed by science. We see scientists as authority figures, and society doesn't seem to question authority, thus everything they see if true. When one really analyzes the benefits of the nuclear reactors, especially the breeders, one will see it will be more efficient at a cheaper cost.
I don't think that Teller was discounting nuclear reactors all together, but he wanted the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to regulate the reactors. He recognizes the fact that in the past, explosions haven't been very detrimental to society. He stipulates the fact that the one thing that people are most worried about is the possibility of the reactor to explode. Although these fears are eminent, an explosion will only affect the people in the immediate surrounding areas. The thing that he is most worried about is the nuclear poison from the reactors. He acknowledges the fact that although the possibility of an accident is small, we can't be naive, and if an accident were to happen it would be disastrous to the community. Weinberg looks at this same point from a different perspective and believes that although accidents are inevitable, their is a small probability they would happen, and it wouldn't have as great an effect on the community as we think. Unless the community is built right on top of the plant, one doesn't notice the effects until way after the explosion. Teller also realizes that the construction of reactors are inevitable, and so are accidents thus, no legislation will be able to stop accidents or mitigate the effects. Teller has a realistic view to the creation of reactors, although we can't stop them, the government can aid in making them safer. He also notices that they are a good thing for the advancement of science. Lastly, Teller believes that a less expensive source of fissionable materials needs to be found, which Weinberg has the solution to this problem via breeders. Teller states that the lower the cost of atomic weapons, the more we can produce which is advantageous for our military.
Weinberg is an advocate for the breeders because they will produce more energy in an efficient manner both scientifically and economically. The breeder creates more fissile material then it destroys and " a breeder extracts so much more energy from a gram of uranium than does a burner, we can afford to pay very much more for that gram of uranium if we burn it in a breeder than if we burn it in a burner" (Weinberg 9). Inevitably, he is arguing that we should expend all of our resources to build breeders, but with the changing government there is a halt in creating breeders ( ie. Carter's energy policy and the Clinch River Breeder Reactor which will just be an image). Similar to Teller, people are afraid of the nuclear waste, the potential meltdowns and other accidents, and economical aspects of breeders. Weinberg argues that in the long run we will be successful if we use breeders and we shouldn't worry about the effects. He is a strong advocate for breeders. It we put the right people in charge of overseeing breeders and reactors then their should be little to worry about. Society is so afraid of nuclear technology, and what we need is for scientists to precisely depict how nuclear technology can benefit society, so that it will assuage apprehensions against such projects.
The effects of Chernobyl were shocking, and that made people hesitant of bringing nuclear power to the United States. Chernobyl was a freak accident that could happen anywhere, and although we don't want it on our turf, we should not discount the positive effects that nuclear energy has for society. Teller and Weinberg give two different accounts of their views of nuclear energy, as Teller doesn't necessarily not like it, but would feel better if there were safeguards. Whereas, Weinberg is a strong advocate for nuclear energy and believes it has many promising effects. Where do you stand?
I don't think that Teller was discounting nuclear reactors all together, but he wanted the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to regulate the reactors. He recognizes the fact that in the past, explosions haven't been very detrimental to society. He stipulates the fact that the one thing that people are most worried about is the possibility of the reactor to explode. Although these fears are eminent, an explosion will only affect the people in the immediate surrounding areas. The thing that he is most worried about is the nuclear poison from the reactors. He acknowledges the fact that although the possibility of an accident is small, we can't be naive, and if an accident were to happen it would be disastrous to the community. Weinberg looks at this same point from a different perspective and believes that although accidents are inevitable, their is a small probability they would happen, and it wouldn't have as great an effect on the community as we think. Unless the community is built right on top of the plant, one doesn't notice the effects until way after the explosion. Teller also realizes that the construction of reactors are inevitable, and so are accidents thus, no legislation will be able to stop accidents or mitigate the effects. Teller has a realistic view to the creation of reactors, although we can't stop them, the government can aid in making them safer. He also notices that they are a good thing for the advancement of science. Lastly, Teller believes that a less expensive source of fissionable materials needs to be found, which Weinberg has the solution to this problem via breeders. Teller states that the lower the cost of atomic weapons, the more we can produce which is advantageous for our military.
Weinberg is an advocate for the breeders because they will produce more energy in an efficient manner both scientifically and economically. The breeder creates more fissile material then it destroys and " a breeder extracts so much more energy from a gram of uranium than does a burner, we can afford to pay very much more for that gram of uranium if we burn it in a breeder than if we burn it in a burner" (Weinberg 9). Inevitably, he is arguing that we should expend all of our resources to build breeders, but with the changing government there is a halt in creating breeders ( ie. Carter's energy policy and the Clinch River Breeder Reactor which will just be an image). Similar to Teller, people are afraid of the nuclear waste, the potential meltdowns and other accidents, and economical aspects of breeders. Weinberg argues that in the long run we will be successful if we use breeders and we shouldn't worry about the effects. He is a strong advocate for breeders. It we put the right people in charge of overseeing breeders and reactors then their should be little to worry about. Society is so afraid of nuclear technology, and what we need is for scientists to precisely depict how nuclear technology can benefit society, so that it will assuage apprehensions against such projects.
The effects of Chernobyl were shocking, and that made people hesitant of bringing nuclear power to the United States. Chernobyl was a freak accident that could happen anywhere, and although we don't want it on our turf, we should not discount the positive effects that nuclear energy has for society. Teller and Weinberg give two different accounts of their views of nuclear energy, as Teller doesn't necessarily not like it, but would feel better if there were safeguards. Whereas, Weinberg is a strong advocate for nuclear energy and believes it has many promising effects. Where do you stand?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)