Advertisement

The Nature of Weapons Research

  • John ForgeEmail author
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Ethics book series (BRIEFSETHIC)

Abstract

In order the make the case against weapons research we need to know what weapons research is, and the aim of this chapter is to explain what it is. There is no need to come up with an absolutely precise definition which includes every instance of weapons research and excludes everything else, a kind of ‘demarcation criterion’. We do, however, have a choice as to how we understand “research”, and this will become clear after I have introduced two examples. One of these, the Manhattan Project, is familiar to many, at least in outline, and has been the subject of much writing and discussion. The other, the development of the torsion catapult in the fourth century BCE, is much less familiar. I have chosen these examples for several reasons. The first is that I want to suggest that weapons research is not a new or recent phenomenon, but has a very long pedigree—this suggestion is a consequence of how I think we should understand research. The Manhattan Project was the beginning of the nuclear age which led to the nuclear-armed world we live in today, with enough nuclear weapons to extinguish much of sentient life on the planet. No more need be said about its relevance to the present discussion.

References

  1. Forge, J. 2004. The Morality of Weapons Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 10: 531–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Forge, J. 2008. The Responsible Scientist. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Forge, J. 2012. Designed to Kill: The Case Against Weapons Research. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Goudsmit, S. 1947. Alsos. New York: Schuman.Google Scholar
  5. Hoddeson, L., P. Henriksen, R. Meade, and C. Westfall. 1993. Crtical Assembly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Howey, A. 1999. Civil War Illustrated Times 38: 5.Google Scholar
  7. Ihde, D. 1993. Philosophy of Technology. New York: Paragon House.Google Scholar
  8. Kennedy, P. 1987. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  9. Lee, W. 2016. Waging War. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Marsden, E. 1969. Greek and Roman Artillery: Historical Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Marsden, E. 1971. Greek and Roman Artillery: Technical Treatises. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Posen, B. 1984. The Sources of Military Doctrine: France, Britain and Germany Between the Wars. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Rihill, T. 2007. The Catapult. Yardley, Penn: Westholme.Google Scholar
  14. Rhodes, R. 1986. The Making of the Atomic Bomb. Harmonsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  15. Serber, R. 1992. The Los Alamos Primer. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Smyth, H. 1989. Atomic Energy for Military Purposes. Stanford: Standford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Steele, B., and T. Dorland. 2005. The Heirs of Archimedes. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wintjes, J. 2016. “Ancient Naval Artillery Support” in G. Dworok and F. Jacob. The Means to Kill. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of History and Philosophy of ScienceSydney UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations