Category Archives: Security

US Military Counters Dr. Strangelove

A short film titled “SAC Command Post” from 1963 has been posted by the National Archives, which tries to play down any possibility of unauthorized U.S. nuclear strikes:

U.S. Air Force Special Film Project 1236, “SAC Command Post,” n.d, Produced by Air Force Audio Visual Service (Military Airlift Command), 1365th Photo Squadron

The National Security Archive refers to it as “The Air Force versus Hollywood“:

To refute early 1960s novels and Hollywood films like Fail-Safe and Dr. Strangelove which raised questions about U.S. control over nuclear weapons, the Air Force produced a documentary film–“SAC [Strategic Air Command] Command Post”–to demonstrate its responsiveness to presidential command and its tight control over nuclear weapons.

Watch and learn how power to preserve order is the “only way to world peace”:

Reel 1 of 3

 

Reel 2 of 3

 

Reel 3 of 3

The Politics of Loughner

Interesting thoughts on security and politics from Steve Striffler:

…in a world where fragments of information come from so many sources, it often leads them to the odd place where any explanation of the world is as good as any other, where there is no conceptual rudder for judging one theory or idea against another. […] Hence, the tendency toward apathy and (after a philosophy class or two) nihilism.

Striffler seems to conclude that discussions about risk should still look at the role of political views and rhetoric, including confused and reactionary ones like Loughner’s.

It is a bit ironic that at the same time as many commentators are urging us to listen more closely to our opponents’ ideas and resist the urge to demonize them, that we are dismissing Loughner’s political views without even so much as a real discussion. What he did is horrible, but the commentary has gone too quickly from “Loughner’s actions were politically motivated” to “it had nothing to do with politics.”

George Packer also has an interesting look at the balance of violent rhetoric within American political discourse:

In fact, there is no balance—none whatsoever. Only one side has made the rhetoric of armed revolt against an oppressive tyranny the guiding spirit of its grassroots movement and its midterm campaign. Only one side routinely invokes the Second Amendment as a form of swagger and intimidation, not-so-coyly conflating rights with threats. Only one side’s activists bring guns to democratic political gatherings. Only one side has a popular national TV host who uses his platform to indoctrinate viewers in the conviction that the President is an alien, totalitarian menace to the country. Only one side fills the AM waves with rage and incendiary falsehoods. Only one side has an iconic leader, with a devoted grassroots following, who can’t stop using violent imagery and dividing her countrymen into us and them, real and fake. Any sentient American knows which side that is; to argue otherwise is disingenuous.

Mill’s Harm Principle of Free Speech

I am seeing a lot of references to John Stuart Mill in recent news. Blair Lindsay, for example, writes in the Christian Science Monitor:

As 19th century philosopher John Stuart Mill explained, “bad speech” should be met with more speech, not more speech regulations.

Bad speech is so vague as to be meaningless in Lindsay’s opinion piece. That is like saying bad food should not be regulated — are we talking about an inexperienced cook or a case of salmonella poison? My guess is we can agree to limit poison from the dinner table. More food is not a remedy for being poisoned.

It prompted me to pull out my old philosophy readers and peruse through Mill’s work called “On Liberty”. In chapter one he states his harm principle:

…the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

More to the point of the current debate, Mill clarifies in chapter three that by harm he means the “instigation to some mischievous act” should be regulated.

No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions. On the contrary, even opinions lose their immunity when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act. An opinion…may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to to an excited mob assembled…or when handed out among the same mob…

Mill is considered a very liberal advocate of free speech but even he puts forward a clear role for speech limits and regulation.

I think we can all agree that bad speech should be met with more speech (like good ideas replacing bad ones). That is easy.

I disagree with the Christian Science Monitor opinion piece because I find it misleading to imply that Mill is against regulation of speech. Mill is cautious of regulation but offers readers a principle under which it justified.