March 11th 2011

[Tawney]

I was glad you brought up what I thought was an interesting idea, Ludwig – that’s why I picked up on it. There’s nothing wrong with speculation, many a scientific breakthrough started that way. I think you’re right to run it up as a flag and get some feedback; I was just giving my inexpert pennyworth.

What I feel is lacking though is (1) we have no reason to believe that it is scientifically feasible and (2) there’s no solid evidence of any sort, that I’m aware of, to support it. I agree that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. But we surely need something to recommend this particular theory over the many others out there? Without (1) and (2) we have nothing to defend ourselves from a vast list of bizarre and weird internet rumours.

Just to make clear – I don’t think “all coincidences were innocent” or that “there are no dark forces at work in the world”. Any decent reading of history shows that’s not the case.

As regards this latest earthquake in Japan, it seems one hell of a way to bury bad news. And what exactly was the bad news being buried? Unless my not knowing shows the success of the tactic.

And lastly - nothing is unthinkable, that’s what’s wonderful and terrifying about humans.

[Andy Hunt]

So the consensus is that earthquake death rays from outer space are more likely than a Biblical prophecy reaching fulfilment?

[Ludwig]

Tawney, I appreciate your reasoned response. Basically I agree with you.

I suppose I might frame my attitude coming from the opposite angle. If artificial seismic activity is possible, then at some point somebody will try it. The question is whether it's happened yet.

I agree that speculation, where evidence is thin, is really just an academic exercise. But I think as we go through life we build on our speculations, even if it's only by ultimately abandoning them. And that's why I think about these ostensibly far-fetched scenarios now. If we develop a kind of mental "library" of possibilities, we have that much more intellectual ammunition in interpreting future events. Of course, this must be balanced by level-headed analysis, and that intangible thing, judgment.

[Tawney]

So the consensus is that earthquake death rays from outer space are more likely than a Biblical prophecy reaching fulfilment?

Well the first would probably make a better film, although I wouldn’t mind seeing a plague of frogs in 3D.

[Andy Hunt]

So the consensus is that earthquake death rays from outer space are more likely than a Biblical prophecy reaching fulfilment?

Well the first would probably make a better film, although I wouldn’t mind seeing a plague of frogs in 3D.

What if the apocalypse will not be televised?

[Ludwig]

So the consensus is that earthquake death rays from outer space are more likely than a Biblical prophecy reaching fulfilment?

Well the first would probably make a better film, although I wouldn’t mind seeing a plague of frogs in 3D.

What if the apocalypse will not be televised?

I can imagine people looking on at fireballs raging about the sky, clouds of locusts obliterating the sun, armies of looters mowing down villages with AK47s - and saying, "Meh - I expected the effects to be better than this."

[Andy Hunt]

Well the first would probably make a better film, although I wouldn’t mind seeing a plague of frogs in 3D.

What if the apocalypse will not be televised?

I can imagine people looking on at fireballs raging about the sky, clouds of locusts obliterating the sun, armies of looters mowing down villages with AK47s - and saying, "Meh - I expected the effects to be better than this."

Some people are just plain ungrateful.

[Tawney]

Tawney, I appreciate your reasoned response. Basically I agree with you.

I suppose I might frame my attitude coming from the opposite angle. If artificial seismic activity is possible, then at some point somebody will try it. The question is whether it's happened yet.

I agree that speculation, where evidence is thin, is really just an academic exercise. But I think as we go through life we build on our speculations, even if it's only by ultimately abandoning them. And that's why I think about these ostensibly far-fetched scenarios now. If we develop a kind of mental "library" of possibilities, we have that much more intellectual ammunition in interpreting future events. Of course, this must be balanced by level-headed analysis, and that intangible thing, judgment.

It’s all out there on the internet; a few pearls of truth amongst a vast ocean of ignorance, lies and well-meaning half truths; tricky deciding on the good stuff.

I like your idea of building up a “mental library of possibilities”, Ludwig. Or maybe another way of looking at it would be a sketch with some stuff more heavily penciled in than others and lots of crossing out. The tricky bit is finding solid evidence that convinces you sufficiently to want to change your behaviour and plans.

[featherstick]

This is also why I take seriously the possibility of artificial killer viruses being developed. There are two questions about these types of things: (i) Are they scientifically feasible; and (ii) If they are, are there likely to be people working on them? Your milage may vary, but the way I see it, if the answer to (i) is "Yes", the answer to (ii) is a no-brainer.

Oh they are definitely being developed, and what's more, to attack only specific genotypes. I once attended a talk given by a fat little hyperactive Reader in defence studies at Kings College - his name escapes me now. He ran through the development of conventional platforms and painted a horrifying picture - kinetic space weapons i.e. a lump of iron thrown off a satellite, full spectrum dominance, automated weapons delivery systems, before going on to less conventional weapons eg language-response mines that only explode if they hear Farsi or Pushtu, "swarms" of intelligent micro-munitions that could buzz en-masse through a village or cave complex and only explode when the face-recognition technology tells them to, killer viruses that have been modified to only kill a specific genotype....all this stuff is being worked on now.

[PS_RalphW]

Language activated mines - easy. Killer swarm of projectiles with face recognition - certainly possible. Genotype specific viruses, highly improbable. I worked on the human genome project - writing database code - and although certain viruses are more likely to be lethal for certain genotypes, there are almost no cut-and-dried examples.

Who is going to deploy a weapon that kills the enemy 60% of the time and your own population 30% of the time? Genotypes are distributed statistically across the globe in every case I know about. No virus is going to be 100% specific to a single genotype, or even a 'racial' combination of genotypes.

I've yet to hear of a virus that does not mutate in a matter of weeks somewhere in its DNA sequence. Even if you started with a racial bug, you would very quickly find yourself with a pandemic.

[DominicJ]

Featherstick
"Kinetic" space weapons are fairly naff.
Putting a few hundred kilograms of titanium into orbit is extremely expensive.
Firing them at a target is fairly inaccurate.
Even if they score a direct hit, the energy contained is considerably less than a that of a small nuclear weapon.

Full Spectrum Dominance isnt really a "technology", it just means you win at everything.

Automated weapons arent really new or indeed even scary.
Does it actualy matter if a fighter pilot is 60,000ft up bombing you, or sat in a Las Vegas Hotel getting blown by a stripper and controlling a drone thats 60,000ft up and dropping bombs on you.

Language mines are certainly possilble, although difficult, and one wonders whats the point?

A guided micromunition is possible, but suffers from a problem we should all be well aware of, energy. And of course, facial recognition does not work anywhere outside TVland. Well, a computer can say, yes, that is a face.....
With some reliability....

[PS_RalphW]

For a space weapon, a 'kinetic' projectile provides all the energy you need to kill an enemy satellite or even an ICBM. If you already have a projectile launcher in orbit, then as for aiming accuracy, well you don't need to worry about wind direction or air resistance, and satellites tend to have very predictable orbits. ICBMs are another matter.

My brother was talking about language specific voice recognition over a decade ago. (He was working at GCHQ) In many small scale insurrections, the easiest way to tell friend from foe is their language/accent/dialect. In the old GDR you could tell a government aparachik (sp) by the jargon they spoke.

I can see them being very useful in Afghanistan...

[DominicJ]

For a space weapon, a 'kinetic' projectile provides all the energy you need to kill an enemy satellite or even an ICBM. If you already have a projectile launcher in orbit, then as for aiming accuracy, well you don't need to worry about wind direction or air resistance, and satellites tend to have very predictable orbits. ICBMs are another matter.

Sorry, I thought he meant orbital systems for bombarding earth.

[featherstick]

Fellas, address your objections to the fat little Reader in defense studies.

Just because something is difficult or expensive, does that mean that somewhere someone isn't trying?

Actually, I'm pretty sure it was this guy

http://www.bbk.ac.uk/news/prarchive/hirst.html

and as the talk was in 2001, that ties in with his book publication date War & Power in 21 Century. Completely got his background wrong, and he probably had an ideological standpoint, but he was very compelling.

[Ludwig]

Language activated mines - easy. Killer swarm of projectiles with face recognition - certainly possible. Genotype specific viruses, highly improbable. I worked on the human genome project - writing database code - and although certain viruses are more likely to be lethal for certain genotypes, there are almost no cut-and-dried examples.

Does that mean no one will be looking into it? Not in my book.

Who is going to deploy a weapon that kills the enemy 60% of the time and your own population 30% of the time? Genotypes are distributed statistically across the globe in every case I know about. No virus is going to be 100% specific to a single genotype, or even a 'racial' combination of genotypes.

One way round this: use the virus in conjunction with something else, like a vaccine, or a "vaccine".

I'm not formulating conspiracy theories here, just considering where the limits of feasibility lie - technically, socially and politically.