Thomas C. Hayes discussed "Reinventing Silicon Valley" in his January 30, 1993, speech to The Commonwealth Club of California?.
Walter S. Douglas spoke about "Mass Transportation for the Bay Area?" in his January 28, 1955, address to The Commonwealth Club of California.
By: Mehroz Baig
As someone who’s taken a fair share of science classes, I know that it can be difficult to tie the daily homework assignments of configuring compounds in chemistry or calculating velocity in physics to a broader world perspective. But that’s precisely what science does: it allows us to understand how our world works and use that understanding to shape how we can address global issues.
Science enables us to go to doctors and be treated for diseases, understand changing weather patterns and the influence of human beings on our environment, and send astronauts into space to walk on the moon, among many other things. Science has allowed us to explore our own terrain and that which is millions of miles away. And the most fascinating aspect of scientific discovery is that it keeps going—the potential to find more cures, explore more of our oceans and solar system, and solve the problems that we face today is never ending.
But it takes more than scientific ability to tackle the world’s most pressing concerns: it takes expertise and resources. That’s where Dr. Ed Lu comes into the picture. Lu, a former NASA astronaut who is the CEO and co-founder of the B612 Foundation, is on a mission to literally save the world. Dr. Lu spoke at the Commonwealth Club about his project to build an infrared telescope that can go out into space, detect asteroids and track them. His reason for taking on this project was because no one else was doing it. “Our current strategy for dealing with asteroid impacts is luck,” he said. “I think that’s unacceptable.”
Dr. Lu noted that as of today, we have the capability to stop asteroids from hitting the Earth, but without the technology in place to track and detect them as they get closer, we can’t do anything to stop them. He explained that once we know the location and speed of an asteroid, it’s fairly simple to ensure that it won’t hit: if we have about a decade’s notice of an impact between an asteroid and our planet, all we have to do is shift the asteroid’s trajectory by nudging it, by one millimeter per second, or as Dr. Lu put it, “the speed that an ant walks.”
This isn’t new territory. NASA’s Deep Impact mission in 2005 included hitting a comet. Though the objective for that mission was to gather more information about comets, the same technology can be applied to reorient asteroids. The only problem is that we have to know where they are. According to Dr. Lu, currently less than one percent of the asteroids in space are being tracked. That’s the problem he’s hoping to solve. Once information on asteroid location and speed is available, more can be done to prepare for their impending arrival. And all this happens over many years: Dr. Lu mentioned that if an asteroid were coming toward the Earth, we could have as much as a 10-year notice before its potential impact. That’s enough time to put together a mission to divert its path.
Dr. Lu is adamant that asteroid impacts are “the only global natural disaster that we know how to prevent.” And they’re going to continue happening. Most recently, as the world was celebrating entering a new year, a small asteroid named 2014 AA, was spotted close to the Earth and is thought to have made impact over the Atlantic Ocean. Dr. Lu noted in his talk that most of the Earth’s surface consists of oceans, so if an asteroid comes into the Earth’s atmosphere, it’s more likely that it will hit water. But can we really afford to take that risk? Dr. Lu doesn’t think so. His belief is, “Let’s not go the way of the dinosaurs because we didn’t bother looking.”
From the archives: Gail Cleland addressed The Commonwealth Club of California? regarding "Struggle for Democracy in Korea: U.S.A. v. U.S.S.R." on January 23, 1948. While in the U.S. Army, Cleland served as senior chaplain for "Southern Korea," as it was then known. He spoke to many groups about the comparative situations in the Soviet-occupied Northern Korea and the U.S.-occupied southern portion of the country.
By: Mehroz Baig
“It’s hard to imagine fallible human beings creating machines that are infallible,” Eric Schlosser said in reference to nuclear weapons. Schlosser is an investigative journalist and author of Fast Food Nation and, most recently, Command and Control, which examines nuclear risk. “Nuclear weapons are highly complicated machines and like all machines, they can go wrong,” he added.
Schlosser’s book documents some of the mishaps that have taken place in our history of owning and expanding our nuclear arsenal. However, as Schlosser admits and Walter Russell Mead in a review of his book in The New York Times points out, there hasn’t been a nation that has yet to face the consequences of an accidental nuclear disaster. Schlosser warned that the likelihood of an accident happening increases every day that there isn’t an accident. “I think we were lucky [that we haven’t had an accident], and there’s no guarantee that that luck will last,” he said.
Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund and author of Nuclear Nightmares: Securing the World Before It’s Too Late, joined Schlosser at the Commonwealth Club for a discussion recently on nuclear safety. He noted another argument for reducing our nuclear arsenal: the sheer cost of maintaining and updating nuclear weapons. A report by the Ploughshares Fund estimates that the United States will spend anywhere between $620 and $661 billion dollars on nuclear weapons in the next 10 years. And though it’s understandable that creating and maintaining nuclear weapons is costly, there is some questioning about where that money is going.
An article in Time magazine reported that in October 2013, the Pentagon requested approximately $10 billion in funding to update the country’s B61 bombs. However, we had already developed a more advanced version of the B61: the B83. The problem? The B83 is much too destructive. The article reported, “The B83, truth be told, is a city-destroyer. First detonated in 1984, its yield (adjustable, but about a megaton) is 75 times that of the ‘Little Boy’ that destroyed Hiroshima.” That means that it’s not very good at being a deterrent, one of the reasons why we keep nuclear weapons. The reason is that more than likely, our government wouldn’t use such a strong weapon against an enemy due to the much higher number of casualties and destruction it would cause because, it could be against international law. If the United States faced an attack and retaliated by obliterating a city, it would be in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the principle of proportionality, which requires attacks in armed conflict to take into account the destruction they would cause compared to the military advantage they yield.
Kennette Benedict, executive director and publisher of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, makes another argument for reducing our nuclear arsenal: the increased ability to use diverted funds to strengthen the U.S. economy. In an article for the Bulletin, she notes, “The diversion of investment into military production leaves a society with fewer resources for housing, agriculture, and education,” and goes on to add, “public sector investment, as well as production in the civilian economy, are engines of long-term growth.” The money that would be saved from nuclear spending could indeed be put to good use elsewhere, to improve the myriad issues the United States is currently facing, including education, unemployment, and weakening infrastructure.
Complete denuclearization might be unrealistic, especially with other nations acquiring or working toward acquiring nuclear weapons. However, the argument that Schlosser, Cirincione, and Benedict make is that the thousands of nuclear weapons we currently possess are an unnecessary source of danger, not only physically but also economically. Cirincione noted that in order to use nuclear weapons as a deterrent, the United States only needs about 500 of them, not the estimated 7,700 we currently have. “Several hundred seems to be what many military and national security experts think will serve our deterrence needs,” he said during his discussion at the Commonwealth Club.
Mead agrees, noting in his review, “[Schlosser’s] core recommendation that the United States explore the possibilities of operating a minimal deterrent, the smallest number of nuclear weapons needed to prevent adversaries from contemplating a nuclear attack on us, may be the most hopeful direction in which we can look.” The United States is slowly moving in that direction, having signed the New START treaty with Russia, which aims to reduce the nuclear arsenals of both nations. The treaty’s duration is 10 years and reduces the number of weapons to 1,550. And though the president is working toward further reducing our nuclear arsenal along with that of Russia’s, we’ll have to wait to see how long it takes, and hope that the luck that’s kept a nuclear accident from happening up until now comes along for the ride.