I did not care much for Hardys opinion about how innocent pure math was. Since it was later proved wrong by nukes. But the novella was a real glimpse into the austere life of a curmudgeon and some of the oxford culture. In addition to the culture of the elite as well, which unsurprisingly respect science and math much more than proles.
Well, it's not math that kills, it's people... I mean, I don't think it is fair to blame scientists, engineers, workers, etc. - let alone the tools that they use - for the way the product of their work is used.
Also, to be fair, the elementary analysis book which Hardy wrote under the title A Course of Pure Mathematics by today's standards would hardly qualify as a book on 'pure math' anyway.
>I mean, I don't think it is fair to blame scientists, engineers, workers, etc. - let alone the tools that they use
I think it should be fair. It's no secret what these precision guided bombs are being used for, so why should the nerds that continue to work on them be free of culpability?
The invention of the nuclear bomb has led to the most peaceful period in human history. So to whatever extent the scientists and engineers who had some part in creating those bombs are culpable, they should be considered heroes.
No, it didn't. Democide in the 20th century, the death toll of which far outstripped the death toll from conventional warfare, reached its peak after the use of nuclear weapons against civilians in Japan. The notion that the post-nuclear era has been "peaceful" either absolutely or relatively is completely, ridiculously false.
Nuclear power is a fact of nature. It simply exists. Learning this doesn't cost you any innocence; it is nature itself that has conspired to make such things possible, not humans.
I'd like to hear more on this idea that nukes prove pure math not innocent. Surely it's applied maths (and physics, and engibeerung) that created nukes?
