Arguments that Count

Physics, Computing, and Missile Defense, 1949-2012

Ebook
On sale Aug 16, 2013 | 344 Pages | 9780262316545

See Additional Formats
How differing assessments of risk by physicists and computer scientists have influenced public debate over nuclear defense.

In a rapidly changing world, we rely upon experts to assess the promise and risks of new technology. But how do these experts make sense of a highly uncertain future? In Arguments that Count, Rebecca Slayton offers an important new perspective. Drawing on new historical documents and interviews as well as perspectives in science and technology studies, she provides an original account of how scientists came to terms with the unprecedented threat of nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). She compares how two different professional communities—physicists and computer scientists—constructed arguments about the risks of missile defense, and how these arguments changed over time. Slayton shows that our understanding of technological risks is shaped by disciplinary repertoires—the codified knowledge and mathematical rules that experts use to frame new challenges. And, significantly, a new repertoire can bring long-neglected risks into clear view.

In the 1950s, scientists recognized that high-speed computers would be needed to cope with the unprecedented speed of ICBMs. But the nation's elite science advisors had no way to analyze the risks of computers so used physics to assess what they could: radar and missile performance. Only decades later, after establishing computing as a science, were advisors able to analyze authoritatively the risks associated with complex software—most notably, the risk of a catastrophic failure. As we continue to confront new threats, including that of cyber attack, Slayton offers valuable insight into how different kinds of expertise can limit or expand our capacity to address novel technological risks.

Acknowledgments ix
Introduction 1
1 Software and the Race against Surprise Attack 17
2 Framing an “Appallingly Complex” System 41
3 Complexity and the “Art or Evolving Science” of Software 63
4 “No Technological Solution”? 85
5 What Crisis? Software in the “Safeguard” Debate 109
6 The Politics of Complex Technology 133
7 The Political Economy of Software Engineering 151
8 Nature and Technology in the Star Wars Debate 173
9 Conclusion: Complexity Unbound 199
Notes 227
Unpublished Sources and Notations 301
Index 305
Rebecca Slayton is a Lecturer in Public Policy and Junior Faculty Fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University.

About

How differing assessments of risk by physicists and computer scientists have influenced public debate over nuclear defense.

In a rapidly changing world, we rely upon experts to assess the promise and risks of new technology. But how do these experts make sense of a highly uncertain future? In Arguments that Count, Rebecca Slayton offers an important new perspective. Drawing on new historical documents and interviews as well as perspectives in science and technology studies, she provides an original account of how scientists came to terms with the unprecedented threat of nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). She compares how two different professional communities—physicists and computer scientists—constructed arguments about the risks of missile defense, and how these arguments changed over time. Slayton shows that our understanding of technological risks is shaped by disciplinary repertoires—the codified knowledge and mathematical rules that experts use to frame new challenges. And, significantly, a new repertoire can bring long-neglected risks into clear view.

In the 1950s, scientists recognized that high-speed computers would be needed to cope with the unprecedented speed of ICBMs. But the nation's elite science advisors had no way to analyze the risks of computers so used physics to assess what they could: radar and missile performance. Only decades later, after establishing computing as a science, were advisors able to analyze authoritatively the risks associated with complex software—most notably, the risk of a catastrophic failure. As we continue to confront new threats, including that of cyber attack, Slayton offers valuable insight into how different kinds of expertise can limit or expand our capacity to address novel technological risks.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments ix
Introduction 1
1 Software and the Race against Surprise Attack 17
2 Framing an “Appallingly Complex” System 41
3 Complexity and the “Art or Evolving Science” of Software 63
4 “No Technological Solution”? 85
5 What Crisis? Software in the “Safeguard” Debate 109
6 The Politics of Complex Technology 133
7 The Political Economy of Software Engineering 151
8 Nature and Technology in the Star Wars Debate 173
9 Conclusion: Complexity Unbound 199
Notes 227
Unpublished Sources and Notations 301
Index 305

Author

Rebecca Slayton is a Lecturer in Public Policy and Junior Faculty Fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University.

Books for National Depression Education and Awareness Month

For National Depression Education and Awareness Month in October, we are sharing a collection of titles that educates and informs on depression, including personal stories from those who have experienced depression and topics that range from causes and symptoms of depression to how to develop coping mechanisms to battle depression.

Read more

Horror Titles for the Halloween Season

In celebration of the Halloween season, we are sharing horror books that are aligned with the themes of the holiday: the sometimes unknown and scary creatures and witches. From classic ghost stories and popular novels that are celebrated today, in literature courses and beyond, to contemporary stories about the monsters that hide in the dark, our list

Read more

Books for LGBTQIA+ History Month

For LGBTQIA+ History Month in October, we’re celebrating the shared history of individuals within the community and the importance of the activists who have fought for their rights and the rights of others. We acknowledge the varying and diverse experiences within the LGBTQIA+ community that have shaped history and have led the way for those

Read more