Back when I was designing electronic circuits, the rule was to design for minimum speed, but faster speed should not cause a failure. The rationale was that newer parts were usually faster, and the older parts disappeared.
Of course, nothing can prevent poorly designed code and hardware.
The speed thing was just an example that easily came to mind. I can imagine there are other kinds of analog vs digital interactions that might be occurring that may not be easily replicated under emulation. Especially with a system that grew somewhat organically over the last half-century.
Emulation is likely possible, probably for many of the systems involved, but this is not a field where bugs, especially ones introduced due to emulation, would be easily acceptable.
> Of course, nothing can prevent poorly designed code and hardware.
Agreed, but the reality is that here, trying to fix things and ending up breaking them can and probably will kill people.
> Being terrified of progress means you're likely to kill far more people.
I'm not really sure what you're arguing for, or against, here. Nobody denies that changes are needed. The hardware is failing and buying new isn't possible to do seamlessly because of the age of the software.
The discussion is whether emulation is a possibility and people are pointing out that this comes with its own risks, so the discussion should centre around whether the cost/risk of emulation is lower than the cost/risk of building completely new systems.
Of course, nothing can prevent poorly designed code and hardware.