Nuclear Debate | Katherine Hamnett | Proposition
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 июл 2024
- SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-union.org/
The Motion: This House Believes Nuclear Weapons Have No Place In 21st Century Britain.
Katherine Hamnett continues the case for the proposition, as the third speaker of six in the debate.
The motion was defeated.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
has Oxford debated thorium molten salt reactors instead of current faster reactors ?
Drone subs and hackers are hacking into non-networked nuclear launch authorization systems.... Any other ideas for for my next fictional novel, Katherine?
Holy cow, she is either totally ignorant of the technology that directly involves and controls nuclear weapons, or she is knowingly attempting to lie to the audience in an attempt to prop up her hopeless argument.
+Sebastian Chan Why the ad hominem attack? The drone point is probably about newly developed underwater drone swarms that render null the ability of submarines to disappear. And USB sticks have been used to compromise non-networked industrial control systems e.g. Israel's/US's virus attack against the Iranian nuclear programme - not quite the keys to a nuclear launch, but a compromise of dangerous technology nonetheless.
+Redee 85 Nice idea. But it didn't work for the Iranians, or countless other organisations compromised in this way. 100% compliance is hard to achieve in large organisations.
+wrightbyname At no point did I make an ad hominem attack. I questioned her arguments' basis in fact and I questioned her reasons for making the claims she did. Neither of those is ad hominem.
The new drones don't even work for finding mines, let alone subs that can traverse the oceans at great speed. How do you expect a small drone to mount a sensor large enough to be sensitive enough to find and track a boomer? Then, how do you expect this drone to keep up with the boomer in terms of speed or endurance?
We can't even build a manned sub that can reliably track boomers. How is a drone, without the ability to be guided by people, going to find and track something that can't be found by a real sub?
On the USB point, regardless of whether or not an infected USB key got onto the sub, you can't fire the weapons without both the captain and first officer inserting their missile keys and without proper authentication/authorization from the national command authority.
+Sebastian Chan I believe the point (if unclear) was that cyber attacks are a greater and present threat than nuclear war, so money could be spent much more effectively - especially if a key part of Trident's rationale (hiding) is nullified. USB exploits are not being linked to launching nuclear weapons.
A Trident replacement will not come online until the 2030s and will be expected to serve for decades more, but drones are being developed rapidly today: www.theguardian.com/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2016/feb/29/new-trident-submarines-doomed-by-drones-of-the-future-says-new-report and www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/16/trident-old-technology-brave-new-world-cyber-warfare. Drones don't need to find and track boomers totally unguided. They can complement subs and other methods by casting a far wider net than single subs are capable of. They will be particularly helpful in choke points around ports where subs are already most vulnerable to detection but the technology to do so is still lacking today.
+wrightbyname Again, this assumes it is possible to nullify a boomer's ability to hide (something that is still a technological impossibility)
Presenting the choice between cyber readiness and an at sea deterrent is silly. Just shoveling more money into cyber (especially the amount of money that trident costs) would not meaningfully improve the UK's cyber security. On the other hand, maintaining the deterrent ensures that the UK maintains every level of sovereignty.
Lol! Sharknado is more scientifically accurate than 1/2 of her talk!