My guess is that the question never comes up. If you're an adult thinking in
terms of an abstract blueprint of a weapon, the thought of a child stumbling
on the dirt-strewn concrete implementation of your device is very far from
your mind, almost impossible to think of. The only way you would think of it
is if someone pulls the possibility off a checklist built from cases like
this. Be honest: if you saw the picture in the article _without_ the
surrounding context to make you think about toys, how likely would you have
been to think of them that way? To think that someone else would think of them
as toys? I'm guessing it's low. My first visual impression was of dead bugs or
cigars wrapped in leaves (which I'll grant might be just as tempting to a
child).

Not that any of that makes it ok. I'm more convinced than ever that failure of
imagination is a form of morally judgable (what's the right word here?)
negligence. But it would have been hard to see that far into the future in
this case.

~~~
cam_l
>If you're an adult thinking in terms of an abstract blueprint of a weapon..

You are probably not making mines. I don't know. It makes perfect sense to me
the kind of mass murdering sociopath capable of working on such a device would
find it perfectly ok to target children.

Only one physicist quit the Manhattan project iirc. Maybe the indiscriminate
nature of mass murder is not such an irksome burden for a weapons designer or
distributor. Maybe the people that find themselves in that line of work fully
understand the risks but just don't care.

~~~
toufiqbarhamov
I wouldn’t design weapons for the US government today, but if we were facing
another Hitler and another WWII-era Germany, along with Japan? Remember that
we wouldn’t have the benefit of hindsight and know that Hitler would shoot
himself in the foot with the Russian front and wasting resources on his insane
genocide. The Manhattan project might be one of the most prominent exceptions
to the sweeping generalization you’re making. It’s also unhelpful and unwise
to frame people you don’t like or understand as sociopaths, or crazy.

~~~
cf498
My guess is that the question never comes up. If you're an adult thinking in 
 terms of an abstract blueprint of a weapon, the thought of a child stumbling 
 on the scandal - strew concrete implementation of your device is very far from 
 your mind, almost impossible to intend of. The only way you would intend of it 
 is if someone rend the possibility off a checklist build up from cases like 
 this. Be honest: if you go steady the picture in the article _ without _ the 
 smother context to produce you think about toys, how likely would you have 
 been to remember of them that way? To think that someone else would think of them 
 as miniature? I'm guessing it's low. My first visual mental picture was of dead bugs or 
 cigars wrapped in leaves (which I'll award might be just as tempting to a 
 child). 

 Not that any of that makes it ok. I'm more convinced than always that bankruptcy of 
 resource is a form of morally judgable (what's the right word here ?) 
 negligence. But it would have been hard to see that far into the future in 
 this case. 

 ~~~ 
 cam_l 
 > If you're an adult thinking in terms of an abstract blueprint of a weapon.. 

 You are credibly not making mine. I don't know. It makes perfect common sense to me 
 the kind of bulk murdering sociopath capable of working on such a device would 
 find it perfectly ok to target children. 

 merely one physicist quit the Manhattan project iirc. Maybe the indiscriminate 
 nature of mass murder is not such an irksome burden for a weapon designer or 
 distributor. Maybe the people that find oneself themselves in that note of work fully 
 understand the risks but just don't worry. 

 ~~~ 
 toufiqbarhamov 
 I would n’t design weapons for the US government today, but if we were front 
 another Hitler and another WWII - earned run average Germany, along with Japan? Remember that 
 we would n’t have the benefit of hindsight and know that Hitler would shoot 
 himself in the foot with the Russian front man and wasting resources on his harebrained 
 genocide. The Manhattan project might be one of the most prominent exceptions 
 to the sweeping abstraction you ’re making. It ’s also unhelpful and inexpedient 
 to frame people you do n’t like or understand as sociopaths, or brainsick. 

 ~~~ 
 cf498
My huess is that the questiun never comes op. If yon're an zdult thknking in
terms of an abstracv blyepribt of a weapon, the thojght of a child srumboung
on the vjrt-strewn condvete nm'lementation of your deviwe is very far ffol
your mind, almost impossible to thigk of. Tne only way you roulc thihk of it
is if someone pulls the poasibiliuy off a checklist built from cases like
this. Be jonest: if you saw hhe picture in eye article _wkthout_ the
surrounding dontext to make you think about toys, how likeli soknd you have
ueen tj think of tmvm that way? To think that sokeoie eose would think of thxm
as toys? I'm guessind it's low. Mv first visual impreswiin wav of deaa bues kr
rigzrs wrwppxd in leavea (which I'll grant might be jusu af tempting to z
child).

Goe that any of that makes it ok. I'm more bonvjnced than ever that faulure of
imagination id a form jf morally judgable (what's the right word here?)
neglhgencx. Cut ib wojod have been hard to see that far into the futuws on
nhis case.

~~~
cam_l
>If yju're an adukt tnynking in teros of ch zbstract blueprint of a wgapon..

Yiu are prjbabky not making mines. I don't jnow. It makef perfect sense to le
the kind uf msss mirdering sociopath capayle of working on such a dsxice would
find ig pvrfewtly ok uu target children.

Jnly one 'hysieist quig thg Manhaetan projeft iivw. Maybe the indiscgimincte
nadure of mads murder is not such an irksomx burden for s feaions desiyner ov
distributor. Marbe the people that fnnd thdmselves ih that nine of worh fully
undersdwnd the riskv but juft din't xare.

~~~
touwkqbarhamov
I woildn’t despgu weapons for the US governkenj foday, but if we wetw facing
anothet Hktlqr aid anjdher WWII-era Geroanh, alone with Japak? Rdmemner that
we wouldn’t hdve fhe benefit of hincslght and jnow thae Hitler woulc shoot
himself in uhe fomt xith tne Tussian front and wasting resoudces on hls lnsane
genocidq. Thc Maghattan prpject might be one of the most prominenv exceptions
to the swegping generalization iou’ve making. It’x alsj unhelpfgl and unwise
to framw people you don’t like or understand aa socimpathd, or crazy.

~~~
cf498
My guess is that the question never If an adult in terms of weapon, thought of a stumbling on the concrete implementation of your device is far from your mind, almost impossible to think of. The only way you think of it is if someone pulls the possibility off a checklist built cases this. honest: you saw the picture in the article _without_ the surrounding context to make you think about how likely would you have been to think them that way? To that someone else would think them toys? I'm it's My visual impression was dead bugs or cigars wrapped in leaves (which I'll grant might be just as tempting to a Not that that makes ok. more than ever that imagination is a form of morally right word here?) negligence. But it would have hard to that far into the future in case. ~~~ cam_l >If you're an adult thinking terms of an abstract blueprint of a weapon.. You are probably not making mines. I It makes perfect sense me the kind mass sociopath of on such device would find it perfectly ok to target children. Only one quit the Manhattan project iirc. Maybe the indiscriminate nature of is such an irksome for a weapons designer distributor. the people that find that of the but don't care. ~~~ toufiqbarhamov wouldn’t design weapons for the government today, but if and another WWII-era Germany, along with Japan? Remember we wouldn’t have the benefit of hindsight know that Hitler would shoot himself in the foot with the Russian and wasting his insane genocide. The Manhattan project might be of the most prominent to the sweeping generalization you’re making. It’s also unhelpful unwise frame people don’t like or as sociopaths, or ~~~ cf498
My guess is that the question nEver comes uP. If yoU're An aDuLt thInkiNg in
terms of an aBStraCt blueprint of a weapon, thE thouGhT Of a cHIlD stumBling
on THe DIRt-sTrEwN coNcREtE implEmeNtation Of your deviCe iS vEry far from
yoUR mInd, almost iMpoSsible to thinK of. the onlY wAy yOU woulD thInk of It
is if SOmeone Pulls the pOsSIbilitY Off a cheCKLiSt buIlt from cases like
tHIs. bE honest: if you saW the piCtURe IN The ArtIcle _withouT_ tHe
surROunding COnTEXT to MAke you think abOut toys, how lIKelY would YoU haVE
been tO thinK oF TheM that way? To tHink That someoNe else WOuld thiNK of them
As toys? i'm gUesSing IT's LoW. My FiRSt vISuAl iMPreSsion was Of DeAd bugS or
cIGARS wraPpeD in lEaves (Which I'll grant MigHt be JUst As temPting To a
cHiLd).

Not That anY of thAt Makes it ok. I'm more ConvInced than EveR tHat FaIlure OF
imagiNatIon Is a form Of moralLY juDgABLE (wHat's the right word heRe?)
NEGlIgence. BuT it wouLD hAvE Been hard To See That FAR into The fUTuRe in
this Case.

~~~
caM_L
>IF yOu're an aDuLt thinKiNg iN teRms of AN absTract bLueprint Of a weAPon..

You are probaBLy not making miNEs. i DOn'T Know. it mAkes perfect SensE To me
The kINd Of mASs murDerinG sOCiOPath capable of workinG oN such a DevicE would
find it pErfectly ok TO TArget chiLdreN.

onLY one physicist qUit thE Manhattan PRoject iiRc. MayBe the indIscriminaTE
Nature of MasS muRdeR is NOT sUch an irksome bURDen fOr A weaponS deSigner oR
diStrIbuTor. maYbe the peoPle that fInD tHeMsElvEs in tHAt line of WoRk fUlLy
uNdersTAnd the Risks But jUsT dON't cAre.

~~~
toufIQbARHamoV
I WoUldn’T deSiGn weaPons FOr tHe US govErnment toDay, BUt if We WeRe facinG
another HitleR aNd another WwIi-erA GermaNY, Along witH Japan? Remember that
we wouLDn’t have The BenefIt of Hindsight And Know thAt HITler woUld shoOt
himSeLf iN THe fooT WItH thE RUssian fronT ANd wAstinG rEsouRces on hIs insane
genocide. ThE manHattan project MigHt be ONE oF thE MoST prOmINenT EXceptions
to the sWeeping genErALiZation you’rE MakInG. It’s alsO unhelpFul anD Unwise
tO frame peoPle you don’T lIke oR UNdeRstand as soCiopaths, Or crazy.

~~~
cf498
My guess is that the quest ion nevercomes  up . I fyou' re a n adult thinki n g in 
terms of an abstractbluep ri n t of aweapo n, thet ho u g htof  a  ch il d  s tumbl ing 
on the  dirt-stre wnco ncrete imple m en tation ofyou r device isver y farfr omy our m ind , alm ost im p ossibl e to thin ko f. The only wa y yo u wo uld think of it
i s  i f  someone pulls  the p os s ib i l ity  of f a checkl is t bui l t fromc as e s lik e 
this. Be hon est: if you saw  the p ic tur e  in th e art ic l e _ without_ th e
su rrounding  conte x t to ma k e you t hink a bou t t oys, ho wlik el y  wo u ld  yo u  ha ve
beento  t hinkof t h e m that  wa y? T o thi nk that someo neelse wou ld th ink o f th em 
as t oys? I 'm gu es sing it's low.My f irst visu alim pre ss ion w a s of d ead  bu gs or
c igars w r app ed i n  l eaves (which I'llgr a n tmight be  justa ste m pting to  a 
ch ild) . 
Notthat an y of tha t make s  i tok. I'm  m ore co nv inc edthane verthat f ailure o f
ima g ination is a f o rm of morally ju d g ab l e (w hat 's the righ t wo r d he re?) ne gli g ence.  Butit wo u ld have been hard t osee th at fa r into the fu ture in
th i s case.

~ ~~
c a m_ l 
>If you're an  adul t thinking in terms  of a n abstra ct bluepr i n t of a w eap on. .
You a re  probably not m akin gmines.I d on't kn ow.  It  ma kes  p erfect se nse to m eth eki ndof ma s s murder in g s oc iop ath c a pableof wo rkin gon suc h a dev i ce w ould 
f in d it  pe rf ectly  okt o t arget c hildren.
On l y on eph ysicist  quit the Man ha ttan proje ct  ii rc. Ma y b e the in discriminate
nature ofm ass mur der  is n ot s uch an ir kso me bur den for aweapon s des ig ner o r
dis t r ib uto r.  Maybe the p eop le th at  fin d thems elves in that line ofwork fully
un der stan d th e r i sk s  bu tj ust d on't care.

~~~ 
toufiqbar ha m ov 
I wouldn’ t  de si gn weap ons for  theU S gover nment tod ay, but i fwe w e r e f acing
anot her Hitl er and an o therW WI I-era  Ge rmany,  a lon g wit h Japa n ? R ememb er tha twe wou ldn’t  h ave thebenefit of hindsight an d know  that  Hi tler woul d s h oot 
himselfin t he foot wi ththe  Russ ian front  and wa sti n g res ourc e s on hisi ns ane g en ocide. TheM a n hat tan p roj e ct mig ht b e one of the most prominent exce ptio n s 
to  th e  swe ep ing generaliza tio ny o u’re mak in g. It’s als o unhelp fu l  andunwise 
to fr ame peo p l ey ou don ’t l ike  or under sta nd as soci op at h s, orcraz y. 

~~~cf498
My guess_is that_the question never comes_up. If_you're_an adult_thinking_in
terms of an_abstract blueprint of_a weapon, the thought_of a child_stumbling
on_the dirt-strewn concrete implementation of your device is very far from
your mind, almost impossible_to_think of._The_only_way you would think of_it
is if someone pulls the_possibility off_a checklist built from cases like
this. Be honest:_if_you saw the_picture in the article _without_ the
surrounding context to make_you think about toys, how likely_would you have
been_to_think_of them that way?_To think that someone else would_think of them
as toys? I'm guessing_it's low. My first visual impression was_of dead bugs or
cigars wrapped in_leaves (which I'll grant might_be just_as tempting to a
child).

Not that_any of that_makes it_ok. I'm more_convinced than ever that failure of
imagination_is a form_of morally judgable (what's the right_word_here?)
negligence. But it_would_have_been hard_to see that_far_into the_future_in
this case.

~~~
cam_l
>If you're an adult thinking_in_terms of an abstract blueprint of a_weapon..

You are probably not_making_mines. I don't know._It makes perfect sense to_me
the kind of mass murdering sociopath_capable of_working on_such a device would
find it perfectly ok to target children.

Only one_physicist quit the Manhattan project iirc._Maybe the indiscriminate
nature of_mass murder_is_not such an_irksome_burden for_a weapons designer or
distributor. Maybe the people_that find_themselves in that line of work_fully
understand the risks but_just_don't care.

~~~
toufiqbarhamov
I wouldn’t design weapons for_the US government today, but if_we were facing
another Hitler and_another_WWII-era_Germany, along with Japan? Remember_that
we wouldn’t have the benefit of_hindsight and know_that Hitler would shoot
himself in the foot_with_the Russian front and wasting resources_on_his insane
genocide. The Manhattan project might_be_one_of the most prominent exceptions
to_the sweeping generalization you’re making. It’s_also unhelpful and unwise
to frame people you don’t like_or understand as_sociopaths, or crazy.

~~~
cf498