The Big Bang
No, I am not going to talk about the creation of the world/universe. For that, I recommend you to speak to Neil Degrasse Tyson. I am going to talk about a weapon that is supposed suicidal to use. Now all weapons are inherently dangerous especially to the untrained user but this weapon was extremely dangerous to use by its operators. I am referring to the Davy Crockett nuclear device.
The issue was that the weapon was supposed to be a man-portable nuclear weapon. Its critics (and most of its operators) felt that firing the weapon would be hazardous to the operators. Let us start with the flaws of the weapon or more accurately, its launchers. You had a 2 km range launcher (probably procured by some penny pinching rear echelon officer or bureaucrat) and a 4 km range launcher(likely to be the original version by the arms industry. Killing your buyers is bad for business). The launcher was a smoothbore recoilless cannon but accuracy was not an issue (Due to the payload's blast radius). The launcher was mounted on a jeep or an armour personnel carrier (Both vehicles are not known for their defences against atomic blast.).
The issue with the short-range launchers was that the nuclear device was instantly lethal up to 150m from the point of detonation. Its radiation was lethal up to 400m (You were dead even if you had not stopped breathing.). Beyond that, the radiation would take longer to kill you but you had a better chance of survival (Even if you were stricken with cancer or other similar illness at a later date). Moreover, as the warhead was nuclear, most of its operators did not exactly practise live-firing. This lack of practice would have added to the unease. The issue with the nuclear weapons is that the bomb blast is not just what is lethal. Its radiation fallout was also a major killjoy. I doubt that soldiers were issued with Geiger counter so even after the weapon was fired, they did not have any idea if they were exposed to radiation. (Running away is only useful if you can see what you are running from).
To be fair, some of the Davy Crockett nuclear device advocates (Often excluding its operators) did have some suggestions to increase survival rates. It could be launched from behind a hill (It was an indirect fire weapon or the range would even shorter). After firing the weapon, the crew could immediately take cover underground. (When the weapon was created, individual soldiers were not issued with an NBC suit). If the wind conditions were favourable, the operators' chances of survival were greatly increased. Finally, the immediate benefits of firing a nuclear weapon outweigh the almost immediate loss of life.
Here is the million dollar question. If the order to fire the Davy Crockett was given, would the operators have the time to locate suitable terrain (unlikely considering its short range) and the opportunity to wait for suitable wind conditions (Timing will need the cooperation of the enemy which is seldom feasible)? It is tempting to consider soldiers expendable but if soldiers do not believe they have a fighting chance, they have a tendency to retreat, desert or surrender. Soldiers are known to mutiny against their commanders when they believe that their commanders do not have their interest at heart. It is also the reason why poorly performing weapons tend to be substituted by their operators even when it is against the regulations.
The point of this topic is not to discuss the merits of the Davy Crockett nuclear weapon. It is to discuss controversial ideas. People who do not sacrifice much tend to argue about the sacrificing for the greater good. People who had sacrificed in the past tend to be more willing to sacrifice others in the present time (The classic "I have paid my dues" line springs to mind.). People who stand to lose everything tend to be pessimistic about some potential benefits or possible upsides.They also tend to doubt the motives of the people who do not lose anything but stand to gain. They are also (rightfully) distrustful when the people are dogmatically making the decisions.
In summary, when it comes to sacrificing others, we want the decider to have suffered the pain of sacrifice. However, even after he or she has suffered the sacrifice, the decider should not be feeling entitled or even merited to order the same of others. Being dogmatic or parroting platitude ("It pains me to make such a decision" speech is not meaningful if it is made too often or the user appears to be unaffected.) are a clear turnoff. If the decider has not made any sacrifice, it helps if the decider does not make a dismissive or "know-it-all" appearance when making the decision.
"Better than a thousand days of diligent study, is one day with a great teacher." Japanese proverb
The issue was that the weapon was supposed to be a man-portable nuclear weapon. Its critics (and most of its operators) felt that firing the weapon would be hazardous to the operators. Let us start with the flaws of the weapon or more accurately, its launchers. You had a 2 km range launcher (probably procured by some penny pinching rear echelon officer or bureaucrat) and a 4 km range launcher(likely to be the original version by the arms industry. Killing your buyers is bad for business). The launcher was a smoothbore recoilless cannon but accuracy was not an issue (Due to the payload's blast radius). The launcher was mounted on a jeep or an armour personnel carrier (Both vehicles are not known for their defences against atomic blast.).
The issue with the short-range launchers was that the nuclear device was instantly lethal up to 150m from the point of detonation. Its radiation was lethal up to 400m (You were dead even if you had not stopped breathing.). Beyond that, the radiation would take longer to kill you but you had a better chance of survival (Even if you were stricken with cancer or other similar illness at a later date). Moreover, as the warhead was nuclear, most of its operators did not exactly practise live-firing. This lack of practice would have added to the unease. The issue with the nuclear weapons is that the bomb blast is not just what is lethal. Its radiation fallout was also a major killjoy. I doubt that soldiers were issued with Geiger counter so even after the weapon was fired, they did not have any idea if they were exposed to radiation. (Running away is only useful if you can see what you are running from).
To be fair, some of the Davy Crockett nuclear device advocates (Often excluding its operators) did have some suggestions to increase survival rates. It could be launched from behind a hill (It was an indirect fire weapon or the range would even shorter). After firing the weapon, the crew could immediately take cover underground. (When the weapon was created, individual soldiers were not issued with an NBC suit). If the wind conditions were favourable, the operators' chances of survival were greatly increased. Finally, the immediate benefits of firing a nuclear weapon outweigh the almost immediate loss of life.
Here is the million dollar question. If the order to fire the Davy Crockett was given, would the operators have the time to locate suitable terrain (unlikely considering its short range) and the opportunity to wait for suitable wind conditions (Timing will need the cooperation of the enemy which is seldom feasible)? It is tempting to consider soldiers expendable but if soldiers do not believe they have a fighting chance, they have a tendency to retreat, desert or surrender. Soldiers are known to mutiny against their commanders when they believe that their commanders do not have their interest at heart. It is also the reason why poorly performing weapons tend to be substituted by their operators even when it is against the regulations.
The point of this topic is not to discuss the merits of the Davy Crockett nuclear weapon. It is to discuss controversial ideas. People who do not sacrifice much tend to argue about the sacrificing for the greater good. People who had sacrificed in the past tend to be more willing to sacrifice others in the present time (The classic "I have paid my dues" line springs to mind.). People who stand to lose everything tend to be pessimistic about some potential benefits or possible upsides.They also tend to doubt the motives of the people who do not lose anything but stand to gain. They are also (rightfully) distrustful when the people are dogmatically making the decisions.
In summary, when it comes to sacrificing others, we want the decider to have suffered the pain of sacrifice. However, even after he or she has suffered the sacrifice, the decider should not be feeling entitled or even merited to order the same of others. Being dogmatic or parroting platitude ("It pains me to make such a decision" speech is not meaningful if it is made too often or the user appears to be unaffected.) are a clear turnoff. If the decider has not made any sacrifice, it helps if the decider does not make a dismissive or "know-it-all" appearance when making the decision.
"Better than a thousand days of diligent study, is one day with a great teacher." Japanese proverb
Comments
Post a Comment