Air Force Forced To Drops Ethics From Nuclear Weapons Ethics Training

CFIThe Center for Inquiry, that group of ex-CSICOP members turned rogue skeptics, has condemned—condemned!—the United States Air Force for teaching Just War theory in its Nuclear War Ethics course.

This irritated the easily irritable because Just War theory was promulgated by, among others, St. Augustine, who, the folks at the Center for Inquiry feel, was unfortunately Christian. And Christianity and matters military don’t mix, say the CFI. Teaching Just War theory is “unconstitutional” they insist.

Therefore, the members of CFI agitated and complained to the military to remove Christian ethics from its course on Nuclear War Ethics or else…or else what? Or else there would be trouble, boy. We could not have the largely Christian members of the Air Force learn when war was just and when it was not unjust according to the leading philosophers of that faith. St. Augustine and other thinkers’ thoughts should not and cannot be exposed to our military minds else the Republic is doomed.

After completion of this course, airmen must sign a pledge that promises at least that, “I will perform duties involving the operation of nuclear-armed ICBMs and will launch them if lawfully ordered to do so by the President of the United States or his lawful successor.”

An ignorant person might have thought that to require a man to sign that deadly serious pledge, we might like to first ensure that he was provided an education that covered the full scope of philosophy and broad range of history on the topic of Just War. Especially since many, or even most, of the these men are Christian, or will fight next to other Christians, or will fight against enemies who are of other religions.

But, no, says the CFI. Of these philosophies, the military must remain mute. To show that they are not quiet on these subjects, the CFI pestered the AF into releasing the power point slides written by Chaplain Captain Shin Soh.

In his lecture, Captain Soh discusses topics such as “Can a person of faith fight in a war?” and “Can war by just?” He summarized Augustine’s idea of Just Cause, “to avenge or avert evil; to protect the innocent and restore moral order” but not to “expand power” nor for “pride or revenge.” One must also fight under a “Legitimate Authority”, have a “reasonable prospect for success” and only as a “last resort.”

All topics the ordinary citizen might think it useful for our nuclear weapons holders to know. But then the citizens at CFI are anything but ordinary. Just imagining that training like this is being dispensed is enough to, in their words, raise a “public outcry.”

Captain Soh, in his role as a Chaplin and presumably knowledgeable about Biblical history, includes examples of what he conceived were instances of just wars, such as when Abraham “organized an army to rescue Lot.” He points out that, in the New Testament, some soldiers were characterized as “devout and God fearing.” Frightening stuff, say the CFI.

Our man Soh then details the horror of nuclear war and how it differs from other known forms of killing. Hiroshima is pictured, as are many of the Japanese citizens who died in that attack. Soh wonders, was this attack justified? Some say no, many say yes; Soh says why.

Not for the last time Soh pushes home the terrible burden faced by missile commanders. He asks his students to consider, “Are we morally safer in other career fields, leaving the key turning to someone else?”

The CFI would see to it that Soh does not ask this question of future students. They say that “the use of religious dogma confuses the officer’s ethical obligations with religious commitments.”

Somehow—and it remains an interesting question just how—the CFI has forgotten that religious people use their religion as an ethical basis. For these people, it is difficult or impossible to separate ethics from religion. This is also true for non-religious people, since, given the history of the West, the morals they know were largely formed by religious principles. And this is true even if you don’t like it.

Ethics and religion cannot be cleanly separated and it is the rankest, more rigid dogma to insist that it is “unconstitutional” to include any basis of religion in course of ethics. Especially a course on how and when and why to kill people in large numbers efficiently and quickly.

Updates

Beavering Away

Will be engaged busily this week; posts may become sporadic, confused, nonsensical. More then usually, I mean.

Now is the chance to send in a Guest Post (200 ~ 800 words) to finally show the world the Truth of some subject close to your heart. Just email me and I’ll be happy to put it up. Just think: once the world reads your words, you can find the same edifying fame as I have. This fame is so predictable that it can even be reduced to an equation:

    Fame = Obscurity – 1.

I’ll let the mathematically inclined readers figure that out.

Big Announcement!

Sports Fans: I’ll soon have a big, exciting, Oh-My-God announcement that will change your life forever. Those with weak hearts are warned.

I’m involved in a start-up which will test how good experts, bookmakers, bar flies, and civilians are at picking who wins and who loses. By “who” I mean sporting competitors.

Our goal is to be ready for the NFL season. Which, for no good reason, starts in the summer and overlaps Baseball, the only true American sport.

Spencer’s Paper

Roy Spencer has very kindly responded to some of my questions I had about his paper. So the review I promised is nearly ready. Probably later in the week than earlier, however.

Jim Enstrom

Remember the case of Jim Enstrom, UCLA research scientist? He came on the national That-Poor-Sap radar earlier this year when he identified a phony working for the California Air Resource Board. I originally wrote about him here: California Air Resources Board Uses Strange Statistics, UCLA Fires Scientist.

Enstrom discovered that CARB employee and statistician Hien Tran’s PhD came from the degree mill “Thornhill University.” This wouldn’t be interesting except Tran was the author of a report that CARB is using (in part) to make policy.

For his troubles, Enstrom is being booted from UCLA, a university, it is important to recognize, that sucks in quite a bit of moola from CARB and other California agencies.

Anyway, Enstrom has asked my help in reviewing some statistical papers the EPA and other agencies are using to prove that particulate air pollution is Worse Than We Thought. I’m doing this pro bono.

Once we have it put together, I’ll report to you what’s what.

Bad Movies

Only because we just talked about it, Kyle Smith of the New York Post reviews the new book, “Writing Movies for Fun and Profit: How We Made a Billion Dollars at the Box Office and You Can, Too!” by screenwriters Robert Ben Garant and Thomas Lennon

The premise of this book is that most movies stink, and here’s why.

He said it, not I. On movies today: “They suck. It’s unbelievable how bad movies have been, right. I mean, it’s just I haven’t seen a run of this, a crop of movies

. . . It’s a very entrepreneurial world, and I think you will see that right itself with time in it. But, right now today it’s a particularly dreary moment.”

The speaker is Jeffrey Katzenberg, DreamWorks co-founder and movie mogul, earlier this month. I’ll be quoting his words next time some Hollywood person asks me why critics are so mean.

Traveling Day Quiz

Off once again into the wild blue yonder. So today a quiz, inspired by the Cnet article whose over-stated title is “Researchers build DNA neural network that thinks.”

The piece was a review of the paper “Neural network computation with DNA strand displacement cascades” by Qian, Winfree, and Bruck.

Basic idea:

Here, building on the richness of DNA computing14 and strand displacement circuitry, we show how molecular systems can exhibit autonomous brain-like behaviours. Using a simple DNA gate architecture16 that allows experimental scale-up of multilayer digital circuits, we systematically transform arbitrary linear threshold circuits (an artificial neural network model) into DNA strand displacement cascades that function as small neural networks.

They made a brain in a bottle composed of about a hundred neurons, designed for the special purpose of playing a quiz game:

The team trained the neural network to play a memory game in which it would correctly “identify” four scientists based on specific yes or no questions–for instance whether the scientist was British.

Players dropped DNA strands representing an incomplete set of answers into a test tube. The network then provides the answer–the identity of the correct scientist–by fluorescent signals.

When presented with 27 different ways of answering the questions, the DNA “brain” responded correctly each time.

The game is thus like twenty (or twenty-seven) questions, with the focus of trying to discover whether the scientist is British.

Here’s our quiz: think of the shortest list of yes-no questions you can ask to discover whether a scientist is British. Puns are acceptable. Good luck!

My solution to the twenty-questions is below, but hidden by an HTML comment. If you open this page’s source code, look for the word “SOLUTION.” Don’t reveal what this is in the comments below; I’ll reveal it tomorrow.

Posted in Fun

UN Nearly Makes Climate Change A Peace And Security Matter

Sorry for the cliché but Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and caldron bubble! Global warming is generating an “unholy brew” of vexatious weather events that threaten “international peace and security.”

So said Secretary Herr General Ban Ki-moon in an attempt to persuade the Security Council to accept climate change under its purview. But even with his Shakespearean flourishes, he could not convince enough of the member States to accept his horrific visions. For the moment, climate change will remain a matter of science. UN

Ban Ki-moon’s usurpation would have been momentous because if the Security Council accepted global warming onto its watch lists changes in barometric pressure would have become a matter subject to intervention by UN armed forces.

If the UN changes its mind and says climate change is equivalent to genocide or rouge nations engaging in nuclear weapons research, Tim Black at Spiked suggests the UN switch from pastel blue helmets to verdant green ones. Then the nations that are invaded will know they are beset by eco-warriors.

Ki-moon did not help his cause when he said what was false: Climate change is “accelerating in a dangerous manner.”

Extreme weather events continue to grow more frequent and intense in rich and poor countries alike, not only devastating lives, but also infrastructure, institutions, and budgets — an unholy brew which can create dangerous security vacuums.

Extreme weather events are not growing more frequent and intense, whether in rich or poor countries. What is true is that storms of a given magnitude cause more damage now than historically because now we have more people, and more people concentrated in small areas, all who have more expensive toys to break.

China envoy Wang Min voted against Ki-moon and said what was true, that climate change was “essentially a sustainable development issue.” Russia’s envoy Vitaly Churkin was similarly skeptical and voted no. Brazil’s envoy allowed that the UN “must take a holistic view of conflict,” but put the kibosh on Ki-moon’s grand scheme.

But France and England was on Ki-moon’s side. And so was the Obama-appointed US ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, who “blasted” the Security Council for not agreeing with her. She said there was “‘manifest evidence’ that climate change posed a direct threat to peace and security.”

Rice was petulant:

This is more than disappointing. It’s pathetic, it’s shortsighted, and frankly it’s a dereliction of duty.

There is no word whether she stomped her feet, but pouting remains a distinct possibility.

Perhaps the fretful Rice was influenced by Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme Achim Steiner, who, using the military vernacular, called climate change a “threat multiplier.”

In a document dizzy with empty phrases and cheap horror movie twists, Ki-moon cried that “Minimalist steps will not do.” There are also mysterious implications about a sort of climate bank, monies which would be administered by the (incorruptible, surely) UN.

There’s not much meat among the sinew of words. It will take an expert political butcher to cut out what’s useful. What to make of “The science suggested continuing, expediting and ‘tipping point’ trends linked to climate change” or “This Council needs to be prepared for the full range of crises that may be deepened or widened by climate change”?

What is obvious is that there are one or two genuine zealots like Rice and Steiner, more than a few countries with their hands out, so anxious to lay claim to the alms the UN might disperse that they will say the most outrageously false things, and a handful of stalwarts who don’t want to be the source of these alms.

It is clear that the UN through the Security Council, as all political organizations do, seeks to increase its own power. They were stopped only because China and Russia did not want to play along. A curious situation: our enemies (of a sort) taking a position against our government but which ultimately supports us. So, at least for now, thank God for China and Russia.