[iwar] [fc:Can.science.make.us.more.secure?]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2002-08-21 08:04:40


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-5231-1029942279-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 21 Aug 2002 08:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 11805 invoked by uid 510); 21 Aug 2002 15:03:00 -0000
Received: from n18.grp.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.66.73) by all.net with SMTP; 21 Aug 2002 15:03:00 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-5231-1029942279-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com
Received: from [66.218.67.192] by n18.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Aug 2002 15:04:39 -0000
X-Sender: fc@red.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 21 Aug 2002 15:04:39 -0000
Received: (qmail 28263 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2002 15:04:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Aug 2002 15:04:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO red.all.net) (12.232.72.152) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Aug 2002 15:04:38 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by red.all.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g7LF4eN28184 for iwar@onelist.com; Wed, 21 Aug 2002 08:04:40 -0700
Message-Id: <200208211504.g7LF4eN28184@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
X-Yahoo-Profile: fcallnet
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 08:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Can.science.make.us.more.secure?]
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=DIFFERENT_REPLY_TO version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: 

Popular Science
August 21, 2002

Can science make us more secure? We put this query to a few thoughtful
people. 
 
JAY DAVIS
National Security Fellow,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

These guys didn't need to bring weapons to the country; the weapons were
in the country.  They were airplanes.  I'm not much afraid of chemical
weapons stolen from Russia; I'm afraid of perfectly legal agricultural
chemicals that sit around in ton lots.  The thing I worry about is the
terrorist who enters without his or her tools and slowly builds them. 

STEPHEN SCHWARTZ
Executive Director,
Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science

Politicians think that if they just keep science bottled up, and keep
people locked away behind high fences, we will be able to maintain our
lead forever.  But that's not how science works.  There are eight
countries in the world that have nuclear weapons today, and most of them
didn't get help from the U.S.  There are no secrets in science. 

LISBETH GRONLUND
Senior Staff Scientist,
Union of Concerned Scientists

Has technology made us safer relative to 50 years ago or 60 years ago?
The clear answer is no.  Now there is a real potential for radiological
weapons and nuclear weapons, because technology has basically
distributed all this stuff around the world, so people have access to
it.  People often assume that the U.S.  is going to be the only one
gaining from advances in technology.  that's not true. 

ALVIN TOFFLER
Author, Future Shock, The Third Wave, and War and Anti-War

We're entering into a new way of life, and we're just as ignorant of
this new environment as the paleolithic warrior was in his environment. 
I think we have to accept risk in our lives.  You cannot eliminate all
risk without being dead. 

STEVEN KOONIN
Professor of Theoretical Physics,
California Institute of Technology;
Chairman, Jason, a science and technology advisory group to the Pentagon's Defense 
Research and Engineering Division

Data mining is the most important technical problem we currently face. 
(The National Security Agency) collects zillions of bits of information. 
How do you get the different data sources together-broadcast data, agent
reports from the FBI, purchasing and shipping records-and how do you
filter through it? All the algorithms you would need have not been
developed yet.  You need a flow of younger researchers who know the
latest technologies involved and how to apply them.  You would hope that
there's a resurgence of patriotic feeling post-9/11, you would think
that people would be more willing to (work for the government), but it's
still a difficult working environment.

SIMON PHIPPS
Chief Technology Evangelist,
Sun Microsystems

There's no point in having that idealistic view that in the future
technology is going to rescue us.  There's no point in thinking
technology is evil and it's going to destroy us.  The good and the bad
come from the people. 

FRED SMITH
President,
Competitive Enterprise Institute 

The search for a safe society is dangerous as hell.  One of the most
frightening things is that in response to terrorist threats you create a
repressive government, that we try to put the lid on everything, that
you now look at technology and ask, Is there anything that might
possibly go wrong? The solution is to think carefully before rushing out
and adding more regulations and bureaucracies. 

TARIQ ALI
Author, The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity

If modern science exemplifies the dialectic between good and evil then
nothing represents evil so clearly as the research, design, and
production of nuclear weapons of mass destruction.  In the bomb lies the
spirit that could negate all.  The failure of the West to inaugurate a
process of nuclear disarmament has led states elsewhere to acquire
plutonium and manufacture their own bombs.  Do I feel safe? Like hell I
do. 

PAUL LEVENTHAL
President Emeritus,
Nuclear Control Institute 

The longer the time frame between attacks, the more likely it is that
people will let their guard down and deny the seriousness of the threat. 
the record of al Qaeda is that they take their sweet time and they have
patience beyond all imagination.  So it makes me somewhat pessimistic in
terms of our ability to do the things that need to be done to maintain
an effective defense against these kinds of horrific attacks.  denial is
a very human response, but it does run counter to what's necessary to
maintain vigilance. 

RALPH NADER 
Consumer Advocate,
Former presidential candidate 

We could spend our entire gross national product on security.  I mean
there is an infinite demand, right? Look how much we can spend searching
every truck and vehicle that comes from Mexico.  So we have to realize
that there are limits.  While you can reduce some risks, avoid some
risks, mostly we have got to be alert.  Do what's reasonable, and then
pursue global justice. 

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/mG3HAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2002-10-01 06:44:32 PDT