3 ms·

If someone creates a dangerous army of robots, or a dangerous biological weapon on American soil I hope your government destroys it. Compensation sounds ridicu

• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• toomanybeersies 10y ago
  It's a false equivalence. Especially since the stealth isn't the only technology that they've developed, there's also the supercavitating pontoons (I guess they're pontoons), which would have an application for civilian watercraft as well.
  • MrQuincle 10y ago
    I'm not saying that it is as dangerous as the things I mention. It is the US government that deems it too dangerous (forbidding it to be sold to other nations). In Holland there was a strain of bird flu created. I would have not been opposed to the government stepping in. Nuclear proliferation is another obvious example. You state that there are civilian applications. I would say that that is irrelevant. :-) I don't even know how to start addressing that argument. Is it okay to develop potential dangerous tech as soon as you can earn money with it through civilian applications? And why is it not possible to destroy the stealth boat and keep the "supercavitating pontoons"? Is there some dark tech-karma that requires a bomb made for every pill?
    • toomanybeersies 10y ago
      I think the problem is that the supercavitation technology is restricted (it has applications for torpedoes).