http://steeleydock.blogspot.com/2010/10/chilean-miners-and-k-141.html
A debate has popped up over which economic system is responsible for the rescue of the Chilean miners. (This, in Chile, where the social security system is privatized.) Only socialistic, non individualistic behavior could allow men to survive underground and could altruistically mobilize citizens for their rescue, say the socialists. Only capitalism could create such wonderful technology and tools for the rescue, say the capitalists. Beneath all this wrangling is the belief that politics and government have a morality, that some systems--but not others--act with righteousness in mind.
It is reminescent of another international claustrophobic nightmare. In August 12, 2000 the K 141 Kursk, a cruise missile sub Oscar class 11 and the largest attack sub ever built, sank in 354 feet of water 85 miles out of Sevenomorsk in the Barents Sea. The sinking was proceeded by an explosion, presumably of the hydrogen peroxide supercavitating torpedo propellant, that measured 2.2 on the Richter Scale then, two and a half minutes or so later, by a second explosion that measured between 3.5 and 4.4 on the Richter Scale. 118 men went down. At some point 23 men retreated to Compartment 9. Everyone died.
There has been a lot of discussion. Why would the Russians use hydrogen peroxide propellant when the British had declared it too dangerous two decades earlier? How long did the men live in Compartment 9? There was a fire; was that from the emergency oxygen source? Did the fire kill the men in Compartment 9? Why did Putin stay on vacation when the country was overwhelmed with the tragedy? But these all beg the real question: Why did the Russians refuse the aid of the British and Norwegian diving teams that are experts in submarine rescue?
There are a number of answers here and, while the truth is not known, none of the possibilities are nice. The government gave up on the men, the sailors were presumed dead, and, the favorite, the government did not want to ask another country (and culture) for aid. They did not want to be seen as inferior in technology and expertise.
The important notion here is that governments, while comprised of people, are not people any more than armies or corporations are. By necessity governments have qualities and interests that may actually be opposed to the interests of their citizens. In the thirties, German Jews were Germans; the American soldiers exposed to radiation at Bikini were Americans and so were the untreated men from Tuskegee; the Russian government denied the very existence of the Chernobyl disaster at the very time the men charged with stopping the disaster climbed into reactor knowing full well they would never survive.
Sometimes government behavior is foolish, sometimes stupid, sometimes outright evil. But no government is any more or less moral than the post office or the LSU lacrosse team is. (But as the Chernobyl example shows, people are often a lot more moral than their governments.) Some may fit better with human nature but the people who make up the government are different from their subjects. Why? Emergent behavior? They sell their souls to the devil? Sunspots? Who knows. But no one should try projecting human qualities on to the structure of an inanimate object; they should just be as careful as they would be around any machine or animal they did not know or understand.
A debate has popped up over which economic system is responsible for the rescue of the Chilean miners. (This, in Chile, where the social security system is privatized.) Only socialistic, non individualistic behavior could allow men to survive underground and could altruistically mobilize citizens for their rescue, say the socialists. Only capitalism could create such wonderful technology and tools for the rescue, say the capitalists. Beneath all this wrangling is the belief that politics and government have a morality, that some systems--but not others--act with righteousness in mind.
It is reminescent of another international claustrophobic nightmare. In August 12, 2000 the K 141 Kursk, a cruise missile sub Oscar class 11 and the largest attack sub ever built, sank in 354 feet of water 85 miles out of Sevenomorsk in the Barents Sea. The sinking was proceeded by an explosion, presumably of the hydrogen peroxide supercavitating torpedo propellant, that measured 2.2 on the Richter Scale then, two and a half minutes or so later, by a second explosion that measured between 3.5 and 4.4 on the Richter Scale. 118 men went down. At some point 23 men retreated to Compartment 9. Everyone died.
There has been a lot of discussion. Why would the Russians use hydrogen peroxide propellant when the British had declared it too dangerous two decades earlier? How long did the men live in Compartment 9? There was a fire; was that from the emergency oxygen source? Did the fire kill the men in Compartment 9? Why did Putin stay on vacation when the country was overwhelmed with the tragedy? But these all beg the real question: Why did the Russians refuse the aid of the British and Norwegian diving teams that are experts in submarine rescue?
There are a number of answers here and, while the truth is not known, none of the possibilities are nice. The government gave up on the men, the sailors were presumed dead, and, the favorite, the government did not want to ask another country (and culture) for aid. They did not want to be seen as inferior in technology and expertise.
The important notion here is that governments, while comprised of people, are not people any more than armies or corporations are. By necessity governments have qualities and interests that may actually be opposed to the interests of their citizens. In the thirties, German Jews were Germans; the American soldiers exposed to radiation at Bikini were Americans and so were the untreated men from Tuskegee; the Russian government denied the very existence of the Chernobyl disaster at the very time the men charged with stopping the disaster climbed into reactor knowing full well they would never survive.
Sometimes government behavior is foolish, sometimes stupid, sometimes outright evil. But no government is any more or less moral than the post office or the LSU lacrosse team is. (But as the Chernobyl example shows, people are often a lot more moral than their governments.) Some may fit better with human nature but the people who make up the government are different from their subjects. Why? Emergent behavior? They sell their souls to the devil? Sunspots? Who knows. But no one should try projecting human qualities on to the structure of an inanimate object; they should just be as careful as they would be around any machine or animal they did not know or understand.
No comments:
Post a Comment