What to do about perceived future threats? 3

[ivymike]

What would you fine engineers do if, while pondering the implications of some emerging technology, you realized a cheap and simple method to use the technology for terrorism?

Say, for example, that a piece of technology that is expected to be widely available in near future could be used very easily for things that nobody seems to have thought of yet, even in discussions of the "bad side" of the tech?

When "dangerous" ideas come to mind, I'm not sure that just keeping them to myself is the best approach, since I don't figure myself to be the most imaginative character in the world (somebody else certainly has had, or will have, the same idea somewhere). Then again, I wouldn't want to attract too much attention to the ideas (or myself, for that matter) by discussing them openly.

Suggestions?

 

[TD2K]

Hush, Tom Clancy did have that case in one of his books but the title escapes me, it's how Ryan becomes President.

The concept of using an aircraft as a flying missile was attempted years ago right here in the US (back in the 70s?) based on a Discovery episode I watched a few weeks ago.

A guy killed a security guard/police officer in the process of getting through security, tried to hijack a aircraft and was held up by the pilots until another police officer got to the scene and killed the hijacker.

 

[Rjeffery]

Point to ponder:

How would Alfred Nobel feel knowing that he developed a more effective detonator (still used today) along with the dyn-o-mite that made his fortune that is used today by young boys and girls to blow themselves and others in discos and pizza parlors up?

Is that enough to eschew the building of the panama canal or bolder/hoover dam or the mining of iron or copper?

I think I'll go live in a cave, but no where near Ted Kazinski (the uni-bomber)

 

[Speedy]

Mr. Locock throws the Ace (again);

"The way to stifle terrorism is to remove injustice"

During the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland, the British government threw everything, bar the kitchen sink, at terrorism. In fact the more they tried to stamp it out, the worst the problem got. It wasn't until someone decided to get everybody to sit down and talk, that peace (relative anyway) was realised.
Technology isn't the problem, the 9/11 hijackers used box-cutters afterall. From what I can see, terrorism feeds on ignorance and despair. Before we had a world polarised between the free market and communism. Now it seems to be heading dangerously towards an Islamic, non-Islamic divide.

Lets talk ............... Speedy

"Tell a man there are 300 billion stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure."

 

[DaveVikingPE]

And not only that, but how many of the 9/11 and related terrorists were/are engineers?

 

[ivymike]

Not many of them ARE anything anymore, besides dirt.

 

[spryduck]

So let's see.... Terrorists are idiots, there is no way to idiot proof everything, so there is no way to terrorist proof everything.

No, not all of these guys are idiots. Some have PhDs (in what or from where I do not know) so we cannot assume that they are all dumb. Before getting my EE degree I was a truck driver. Before my father got his he was a logger and and electrician. Maybe we just need to convince Osama and the terrorist leaders to practice what they preach. Get him to wear a C4 jacket and go prance down Main Street, Tel Aviv. He isn't going to do that. Most of these terrorists are extremists taught from a young age to hate. Religion is just an excuse. Spend anytime with a practicing Muslim and you will not find that plotting your death is a big priority in their life. Sitting down and talking with the extremists will not pacify them since what they want is your death. Can education of the young prevent this? Sure. Can we do the educating? That is probably one of the reasons why they hide these guys in the middle of nowhere for years to train them.

So, what do we as engineers do about it? Do we look for obvious ways to use our technology for evil. Sure. Do we take steps to prevent this? Maybe just bringing this concern to a supervisor, regulatory person, or law enforcement type person is all that is required. The nuc industry pays people to think up ways to screw up reactors and to assign risk values to these events. Flying planes into them was covered a long time ago. I think others have covered this pretty well. We can't paralyze our country or they win. If there is an obvious threat (look at the Gen IV reactor concerns with proliferation) then yes we do something about it. That doesn't mean that we publish the way to do it in Newsweek, but yes, I think that if a technology can pose a significant danger to people through terrorism then it needs to be brought to the attention of someone with the authority to do something about it. When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. When life gives you grenades, well....

 

[PM]

How many terrorists are members of this forum? For those that do not volunteer their names, how do we sort them out? Is it our job to sort them out, . . . should we be concentrating on what schemes they might be plotting, or should we be focused elsewhere?
Regards,

 

[13]

ivymike started with: "What would you fine engineers do if, while pondering the implications of some emerging technology, you realized a cheap and simple method to use the technology for terrorism? "

This is a question I want to ask, because of the need for balance between good and evil: "What would you fine engineers do if, while pondering the implications of some emerging technology, you realized a cheap and simple method to use the technology that would benefit humankind? "

Many technologies, esp. ones driven by the defense and aerospace industries have been used by other industries, like for instance, renewable energy. We all like to assume the worst. That is what makes us engineers but that doesn't let us see the bigger picture.

Let someone use an otherwise innocuous invention to do harm. Someone else will use it for good. Oh, check this site out...

http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/

 

[Focht3]

Haf said,
I would also like to make some comments on the ethical canon that so many of you are referring to, i.e., "Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public." This sounds good in theory, but is NEVER practiced in reality.

I disagree. I blew the whistle on a contractor erecting a tower crane in downtown Houston in the mid 1980's. He was putting the pad footing over an old basement structure that he had exposed, then tried to cover up. While my boss (Sr. VP and owner) refused to blow the whistle, I contacted a high school buddy at City Hall. The job was red-tagged within hours - well before the crane could be used. And the problem was fixed at a small cost and no real delay to the project. No one was the wiser, either - the city inspector happened to be a P.E. that walked the site before the old basement had been covered up.

I know of lots of examples of others who have put their careers in jeopardy to protect the public.

DaveViking said,
And not only that, but how many of the 9/11 and related terrorists were/are engineers?

Osama bin Laden, for one. He's got a degree in civil engineering - and worked in the family construction business. And he has supported engineering students in school - mostly in Europe.

 

[IFRs]

My suggestion to "What would you fine engineers do if, while pondering the implications of some emerging technology, you realized a cheap and simple method to use the technology for terrorism?" is:

Try to come up with a cheap and simple method to defend against the technology. Then apply for a patent on the defense method, with the intent of making it widely available for a very minor cost to each user.

 

[madkungfu]

he-he-he

You said "Minor Cost"

 

[PSE]

Perceived threats can at least be planned for to a certain extent. It is the unperceived threats that are (by definition) a true problem.

 

[plasgears]

As an avocation I am a flight instructor and have been for many years. I have had an inside view of the business, and the subject of my book in preparation is the establishment of The National Airline Academy" for the training of aircrew and ancillary specialties. This has been brewing for 8 years.

When 9-11 happened I saw that my plan could have prevented terrorists from accessing professional flight schools for questionable purposes. When I contacted politicians and DOT/FAA personnel "the idea was untenable in view of the party in power, etc, etc." Publishers were uninterested in the book; not commercial enough.

You cannot legislate, regulate, or control, the efforts of terrorists to bring mayhem to society. The only way is to systematically exterminate them. They must be brought to the realization that "We shouldn't have started that!" It may be the first justification since Hiroshima to use the bomb on terrorist strongholds all over the world.

 

[PM]

Focht3 wrote:

"Osama bin Laden,. . . He's got a degree in civil engineering - and worked in the family construction business . . ."

bin Laden studied management and economics and took a degree in Public Administration from King Abdul Aziz University in Jedda, Saudi Arabia. He did not study or receive a degree in Engineering.

Regards,
PM

 

[Focht3]

Hmmm,

PM has taken issue with my statement that Osama bin Laden is a civil engineer. I am pained to admit it; you see, I'm a third generation civil engineer and very proud of my chosen profession. Yes, he did prefer Islamic studies. But I didn't pull that "civil engineer" part out of thin air. Check out the following links:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_010920_karez.html

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/b1/binL1aden.asp

http://www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,582274,00.html

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020111/main2.htm

http://i-cias.com/e.o/osama_b_laden.htm

http://www.bartleby.com/65/bi/binLaden.html

I used Google to find these - and many other - links indicating that Osama bin Laden completed his studies as a civil engineer at King Abdul Aziz University in Jidda. I used the following search terms in Google:

osama bin laden "civil engineer"

Now, all these sources may be wrong. But don't blame me!

 

[TheBlacksmith]

I don't know everything, but neither don't everyone else. Alfred Noble's brother died before him, but the obituary published was that of Alfred and named him as the inventor of that scourge dynamite. Alfred Noble felt terrible about the killing that occured in his lifetime due to his invention. This is precisely why we have the Noble Peace Prize. He willed his estate to a foundation that would seek out and reward persons promoting peace as atonement for his invention. How much else in this post is urban legend and hearsay?

Blacksmith

 

[Haf]

Blacksmith wrote:

"Alfred Noble [sic] felt terrible about the killing that occured [sic] in his lifetime due to his invention."

This is a commonly held perception that is absolutely untrue. Alfred Nobel continued to work for the military until late in his life. It is true that when his brother died, a newspaper mistakenly ran an obituary of Alfred that claimed that Alfred was the inventor of dynamite and therefore responsible for killing thousands. Alfred was horrified and established the Nobel Prize to leave a more peaceful legacy.

Why do you write that dynamite is a "scourge?” Explosives like gunpowder and nitroglycerine were already around when Nobel invented dynamite. Alfred merely made nitroglycerine more stable and therefore more safe to work with. That alone saved thousands of innocent lives. It made blasting rock, drilling tunnels, building canals and many other forms of construction work more safe and cost effective. Anyway, it was just a matter of time before safe, high output explosives were discovered. There are already dozens of stable explosives with output that dwarfs that of dynamite.

One other thing: Alfred believed that the invention of dynamite would end war altogether, because the power of dynamite loaded weapons would be so great that there use would be unthinkable. Of course, this turned out to be false. But it foreshadowed the concept of a nuclear deterrent, which thus far has worked to prevent the MAJOR conflicts that scourged the earth every few decades before 1946.

Haf

 

[TheBlacksmith]

Haf,

I think we are saying roughly the same thing about Alfred Noble - and the Noble Peace Prize is aptly named. I agree that dynamite was far safer than nitroglycerine, as long as it is periodically turned over and you don't play catch with sticks that have nitro sweat beads on them. The account I saw used the word scourge in the obit. You are also right that more powerful weapons, rather than deter warfare, tend to bring out more unstable people willing to use them. Kind of like when you make something idiot proof and then the idiots get a little smarter.

Blacksmith