Not only India's. Any developing country's nuclear scientists are either missing, given citizenship in a first world country or "went abroad" for research. There are many actors who do not want developing countries to progress in anyway. Be it nuclear,social or economic.
China is a good example in resisting these warfares/sabotages by foreign actors. They have effectively controlled foreign actors in meddling with their social & economic aspects (controlling fake news, social engineering by controlling the internet). Supporting homegrown technology companies than foreign ones. India should follow the same.
Anybody who thinks that the US does not control its media is naive. See, for example, how Al Jazeera and RT (granted, the latter is no bastion of independent journalism) are effectively exiled from the US.
Al Jazeera had to set up an "American owned" subsidiary before it could get access to the cable network.
The US government does not control the US media in the sense that China or Russia or Saudi Arabia does. In fact, no advanced country with an even marginally-functioning democracy does.
It does exert direct control in certain limited cases, through gag orders and "national security" secrecy laws. That practice has been expanding in the US for the past 16 years, and that's alarming, but still doesn't amount to anything comparable to China's control of the media.
Private groups and individuals with political agendas do control a significant fraction of the US media, however. But, they achieve and maintain this control through normal business means; by spending money and leveraging their resources to expand and consolidate.
We all know by now that Fox News (just the most famous example) is an organization created to disseminate propaganda on behalf of these private interests. However, this group does not align with "the government" -- as the US government changes in response to the tides of the electorate, organizations like Fox News find themselves basically in alignment with the government, then in opposition, then in alignment again.
These organizations by and large stay true to their core mission, which in the case of Fox News is to further the interests of the very rich by advancing a set of themes and grievances that together form a sociopolitical worldview that resonates with enough Americans — even those who aren't wealthy and won't actually benefit when/if that worldview is translated into policy — to give that worldview increased political clout.
So the US media is largely (but still not completely) controlled by a relatively small group of extremely wealthy individuals and interests. That may be harmful to the public interest and undesirable, but it's not the same thing as actual government control of the media as practiced in totalitarian regimes.
The US government does not directly control the media as blatantly as regimes like Russia or China. But they sure do have the ability to influence the editorial agenda, and they sure seem to have a way to divert the attention of the media when itis advantageous to do so.
Yes, of course they do try to influence the editorial agenda, and sometimes succeed at doing so. Other times, they don't. That's not control, however.
The media collectively did indeed do a terrible job covering the 1991 Gulf war, and the military did a masterful job of manipulating them, with partial information combined with unstoppably telegenic footage that the major networks could not resist (the first footage of "smart bombs", dramatic videos of night raids and anti-aircraft fire, etc).
There was, later, a lot of hand-wringing and postmortem analysis on the part of various media organizations (as there well should have been) to look at how they did their job so poorly.
There was a lot more balance to the coverage in the run up to the Iraq invasion, actually. But that time, the American public really was itching for a fight and very easily persuaded (until the main justifications for the invasion were found to have been completely fabricated, and it became obvious that the war would achieve literally none of its goals, harm the US in various ways, and help the very perpetrators of the WTC bombing immensely).
That invasion, which of course ultimately proved idiotic and counterproductive to the national interest, could perhaps have been avoided through a combination more intelligent government, better journalism, and more rational citizens.
But I don't think government control, or even effective persuasion, of the media was a critical factor.
They do not have editorial control. Do they have considerable indirect means to try to influence the media? Of course. But they hardly have a monopoly on that, which is the key point. When you say "the government controls the media" one has to assume you are saying editorial control, otherwise it's a rather meaningless statement (e.g. "advertisers control the media" or "owners control the media" or "PR firms control the media" etc.). And it certainly not the case that the government has editorial control over the media. If that were the case, would the NY Times have published the Snowden leaks?
Of course the US doesn't control the media. If they did, how would Monica Lewinsky have ever been a thing?
There are people who control the media. Rupert Murdoch, for example. And organizations which have undue influence due to advertising and ownership structures. But not the government.
Just because the US did something you consider wrong doesn't mean the media is controlled. And in fact there was lots of debate in the NYT at the time about the Iraq war.
You know what, I am guessing you are one of those people who defends China and Russia by admitting they are bad, but then falsely claiming the US is in no way any better.
> Just because the US did something you consider wrong doesn't mean the media is controlled.
The opposition to the Iraq invasion was vast and loud. There were protest marches against the invasion all over the US, and in many other parts of the world. And yet the NYT editorial supported the war. How is this even possible? How can the NYT, this paragon of journalism, not see what the ordinary people could see, that the case for the Iraq war was rigged?
And by the way, it's not just I who consider it wrong; most of the world does so. You may relish the idea of killing innocent civilians, but most of us do not.
Though this does not appeal to the pro west crowd. If you have noticed, recently there is this anti China sentiment floating around on the internet and even on hackernews as well. This IMO is purposefully engineering to make China look bad, because they have had huge progress lately. China has effectively blocked all these social conditioning tactics from their population by wielding a greater control over the internet. It is effective and it is right for their progress as a nation.
If India starts to make progress, India will also be targeted. In a country divided by many languages and cultures, India is very vulnerable for social conditioning. The case of missing nuclear scientists is one of them.
The so called first world countries, its media, and its people, with good encouragement from certain sectors in the west, often confuse themselves with the world. US fears and dislikes loss of power and being irrelevant in Asia Pacific. The public digests news from these media houses and resonate the same elsewhere.
Among the state and non state actors, China is deeply disliked by global journalists too. It is also deeply disliked by Human Right Propagandists/Upholders, and the so called "global civil society on the internet". The problem is that these people have an ultra large impact on the perception because these are the people who control media, and a general person's access to information. They have abject monopoly over access to knowledge, and are deeply ideological. So much so that, these people are often found lobbying the United States and on the internet forums for policies that may harm the world. But they have huge power in Western discourse, and if they get pissed, they will start a whole ideological parade against their perceived nuisance. For US, it is simply their loss of influence that they are worried about.
The biggest people, and the most vocal, which leads to this perception, are the Global Civil Western Society, who just can't tolerate a state like China's to succeed. It is against their almost fanatically religious form of worship for some ideas, systems, and ideologies most of them tend to be under the guise of pro humanitarian but in reality is borderline jealousy and the fear of losing out. This also should be read in tandem with the fact that this is the very same society which supports the NRA, African American suffrage etc.
A similar phenomenon happened in the 1980s and 90s with Japan. The United States, not the world, was desperately concerned that Japan would not just pass over them in the future, but had already done so economically and culturally. The American mindset is extremely fickle, superficial, paranoid, and shortsighted when it comes to the possibility of foreign rivals. They just cant stand the very thought of competing in a global economy.
So their model works for them because it excludes external influences. But there government is just exerting it's own Orwellian influence on the group is has control of. Is there not a solution that benefits everyone in the world without one group controlling other groups?
I'm curious what theoretical model has the best outcome for everyone, not just for the few people in power and their group. It would be nice if the model included controls for previous failures.
I'm Chinese (well, half-Chinese). I don't appreciate an opinion on individual liberty and freedom of expression, association, self-determiniation, etc. being labeled as "East vs West" or worse, connected to imperialism or being implicitly racist.
The Enlightenment began with the belief that all people are equal. ALL. Doesn't matter if you are white or black or asian or indigenous, or what family, race, gender or sexual orientation you happened to be born into. The Enlightenment has torn down the institution of slavery, overthrown monarchies, revoked state-run monopolies, and given franchise to women and minorities. And it has brought monumental progress to ALL of humankind, including basically all modern technology and medicine. And we are still moving forward, this juggernaut of progress, and we are doing so BECAUSE we have freedoms. The history of the world is that of brief stints of progress being flamed out by oppressive regimes until at long last the scientific revolution took hold. I won't apologize for standing with the Enlightenment and judging governments by how well they achieve these goals for their citizens. As China seeks to control its people, it does so at the detriment of future progress not in service of it.
China's anti-liberty actions and policies are regressive and on the wrong side of history. And to say that it is somehow just an expression of different culture is insulting to the Chinese people who deserve freedom and personal liberty, and dishonor to the memory of those like Sun Yat-sen and others who fought for and achieved societal revolution towards Enlightenment ideals in China and with the support of the Chinese people. There's nothing uniquely Chinese about totalitarian oppression, or anything unique about the Chinese people that make them ineligible for our sympathies.
Wow, this was really well-written, and hit on so many excellent points. I'd love to quote your comment elsewhere, if you don't mind.
I find it really sad when some people think that the basic ideas of the Enlightenment are somehow "Western". They originated in the West, but they are absolutely and in no way linked to any notion of "Western culture".
As some that's mildly libertarian leaning, I'd say the core ideals of Enlightenment are universal moral principles that are objectively good, and workable for any human society.
For example, the principle of free speech boils down to this simple concept: Don't commit acts of violence against someone because they __said__ something you don't like (with emphasis on "said"). This is not a hard concept to grasp.
When some culture claims that such a principle (like free speech) is not "compatible" with their culture, it's a cop-out, and an excuse for some group of people to continue maintaining power, or something like it.
> I'd love to quote your comment elsewhere, if you don't mind.
Sure.
> [the ideas of the Englightenment] originated in the West
I would say they first took root and lasted long enough to have impact in the West. As you say, the ideas of the Enlightenment are universal moral principles that aren't really tied to specific culture, a sort of political version of the Golden Rule. It might even have been the state of nature before agriculture and townships gave rise to kingships and states. We didn't used to be slaves to The Man.
To harp on the theme of this thread, things could have gone very differently if Mo Di's philosophy became the official state belief instead of Confucius' legalism:
This somehow manages to combine both personal attack and a nationalistic edge, both of which are not ok in comments here. Please don't post like this again.
If you've reached a point where you truly believe this is true, it's probably best to just politely end the conversation, both for you and for HN.
On the other hand, if you believe you're discussing the topic with someone who is reasonable, this is probably not a way that will help them understand the point you're trying to make. Once you put someone on the defensive (and I certainly would be if someone were to say this to me), it's that much harder for them to listen to what you have to say, if they even still want to.
Regardless of how frustrated you are or how wrongheaded you believe the other person to be, or how they're behaving, it's never okay to be uncivil. Indeed when discussions get heated, it's even more important that we take even more care to do so.
I wonder if there was any update to this in the last 4 years.
>But the most pressing issue isn't who might be behind the murders, but that the Indian government's apathy is potentially putting their high-value staff at even greater risk. Currently, these scientists, who are crucial to the development of India's nuclear programes, whether for energy or security, have "absolutely no protection at all. Nothing, zero," Madhav told me. "Which is amazing for people who are in a such a sensitive program."
That strikes me as odd, the possibility not mentioned in the article is that the Indian government is responsible. The behaviors of the Indian government in the article do sound suspicious. I understand not wanting to signal to your scientists the level of danger they're in but, given how valuable an asset these people are to the country, that India would've tried to protect them if it was aware at all of a threat and not complicit.
> 11 nuclear scientists had unnatural deaths during 2009-13 in the country, latest data provided by Department of Atomic Energy shows.
> In one case of Barc, police claims that he committed suicide because of prolonged illness and closed the case while the remaining cases are still under investigation.
> Two research fellows at died in a mysterious fire in the chemistry lab of Barc, Trombay in 2010.
> A scientist of F-grade was found murdered at his residence in Mumbai. It is suspected that he was strangulated but the murder accused remained untraced till date.
> A D-grade scientist at RRCAT also allegedly committed suicide with police closing the case.
> Another scientist posted at Kalpakkam allegedly jumped into the sea to end his life in 2013 with the case is still under probe whereas a Mumbai based scientist committed suicide by hanging, with police citing personal reasons for the same.
> One scientist allegedly committed suicide by jumping into Kali river in Karwar, Karnataka with police again pointing at personal reasons.
> Atomic energy department saw 70 unnatural deaths in eight years
> The Bhabha Atomic Research Centre alone saw 38 of its officials die unnaturally, primarily because of accidents, between 1 January 2008 and 1 October 2016.
PS: You should note that now NDA is the ruling coalition instead of UPA since 2014. Situation is much likely to improve because NDA is pro-nuclear, as they did Pokhran-II in 1998.
I doubt they can ultimately protect them, research takes decades and they want to live normal lives. Even the US Presidents hate their security bubble.
Short of putting them in military bases for decades...but even then, a bomb from above will take them out.
I dated the granddaughter of a nuclear physicist involved with U.S. government projects. The CIA always watched him and he knew it as part of the job. They wanted to make sure he didn't leak and that he was safe.
OK, how many can CIA watch? And isn't the "other" CIA plotting to kill you...cat and mouse? One mistake and you're kaput. If you want a person dead, he's dead: minus a few heads of state that have 10,000 cops when they go to give a speech.
Not really, the nuclear physicists were largely allowed to travel freely. I am currently reading (listening to the audable book actually) "The making of the atomic bomb" by Richard Rhodes. I highly recommend the book.
More powerful nukes. Smaller nukes. More nukes per kg of material. Dialable yield nukes. Source obfuscated nukes. Optimal bombing strategies. Interpreting intelligence on foreign powers’ attempts at same.
U.S. military at one time had plans for nuclear rifles, grenades, nuclear powered airplanes - nukes everywhere. As it was they had live assembled nukes on airplanes flying all over the U.S. and the rest of the world, and there were quite a few accidents. Bombs melting into radioactive slag into the runway when planes caught fire or crashed, (Morocco, UK, various others unreported at the time); bombs crashing into the ground during in flight breakup of the aircraft; bombs unlocked, safety disabled, and literally everything except one thing prevented a nuclear detonation in one of the Carolinas. There are dozens of stories like this in Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety the 2013 book, I'm reading now. The 2016 film based on it, I haven't watched.
It's the sort of thing that just keeps getting one upped by the next story. It's surprising, even just mid-way through, that we haven't had one go off by accident by now considering how incredibly proflific they were, and poorly handled.
And the ignoramus in the White House wants more of them.
The United States recruited (or even pilfered) Nazi Germany's nuclear and aerospace engineers. Wanna bet they'd have had them killed if they hadn't agreed? Israel did it with both Iraq and Iran's nuclear engineers.
The CIA has been known for its attempts at sabotaging Indian nuclear weapons efforts around '74 and '98 tests. One conspiracy theory is that CIA killed Homi Bhabha, considered the father of Indian nuclear program, in a plane crash.
> 11 nuclear scientists had unnatural deaths during 2009-13 in the country, latest data provided by Department of Atomic Energy shows.
> In one case of Barc, police claims that he committed suicide because of prolonged illness and closed the case while the remaining cases are still under investigation.
> Two research fellows at died in a mysterious fire in the chemistry lab of Barc, Trombay in 2010.
> A scientist of F-grade was found murdered at his residence in Mumbai. It is suspected that he was strangulated but the murder accused remained untraced till date.
> A D-grade scientist at RRCAT also allegedly committed suicide with police closing the case.
> Another scientist posted at Kalpakkam allegedly jumped into the sea to end his life in 2013 with the case is still under probe whereas a Mumbai based scientist committed suicide by hanging, with police citing personal reasons for the same.
> One scientist allegedly committed suicide by jumping into Kali river in Karwar, Karnataka with police again pointing at personal reasons.
> Atomic energy department saw 70 unnatural deaths in eight years
> The Bhabha Atomic Research Centre alone saw 38 of its officials die unnaturally, primarily because of accidents, between 1 January 2008 and 1 October 2016.
Of course leftists(Maoists?) are controlling the media narrative in India, otherwise it is just not possible that death of seventy scientists from Bhabha would go unnoticed, whereas deaths which are potential source of political mileage and further polarization in society, will cause international noise.
Assuming NDA government to be pro-Nuclear power, as it was NDA government at the time of PM Vajpai who did Pokhran-II, I am sure that nuclear scientists will be provided critical security.
China is a good example in resisting these warfares/sabotages by foreign actors. They have effectively controlled foreign actors in meddling with their social & economic aspects (controlling fake news, social engineering by controlling the internet). Supporting homegrown technology companies than foreign ones. India should follow the same.