}

In wars blood is always poured

2003/05/20 Roa Zubia, Guillermo - Elhuyar Zientzia

Science cannot escape the war debate. Recently, on the occasion of the war in Iraq, an idea has emerged in most armed conflicts. In an interview with the BBC, Dr. John Alexander, a former U.S. army, speaks for non-mortal weapons. He is a lawyer for an institution that defends this idea.

Dr. Alexander says: "In general, it is believed that the goal of war is to kill people, but it is false. The real goal of war is to impose a desire and immortal weapons fully conform to this philosophy."

This opinion of Alexander goes back to the time that, after the First World War, the experts thought that the wars would be more peaceful when it was proved that they were fit to throw bombs. Of course, if the bombs were only aimed at military purposes, the attacks would not be so cruel to civilians.

But World War II came and that statement was suspended. In view of the victims of the bombing, it is easy to understand that ending civilians is a very useful strategy.

I disagree with Alexander. The goal of war is to kill people. Why have they used depleted uranium again in the last war in Iraq? Now they are very concerned about whether the English soldiers have had their traces.

On the other hand, supposedly immortal weapons also kill people. An example of this is what happened last year in a theater in Moscow, where the Russian army issued a gas in order to free the kidnapped by some Chechens. Gas was derived from opium and was supposedly not deadly. But 120 people drowned with this gas died.

In short, it is very difficult to believe that ethics can limit technology for war.

Opinion piece for Herri Irratia.

Additional information:

War and Science

Gai honi buruzko eduki gehiago

Elhuyarrek garatutako teknologia