5 ms·

I'm curious if the author would also refer to the M4 carbine as an "infamous killing machine," given the opportunity. The fact of the matter is that the US is

I'm curious if the author would also refer to the M4 carbine as an "infamous killing machine," given the opportunity. The fact of the matter is that the US is also developing these systems, albeit with more focus on autonomous air combat vehicles. To say that this is a Russia-only problem vastly understates how serious of an issue this is.

RobertoG 9y ago
But it's not the same, the article makes it clear here: "Known informally inside the corridors of the Pentagon as 'the Terminator conundrum,' the question being asked is whether stifling the development of these types of weapons would actually allow other less ethically minded countries to leap ahead?" As a not American, I feel totally safe when it's the ethically minded USA who does it. Yep. That was sarcasm, sorry.
- candiodari 9y ago
  That was the question until the Kalashnikov announcement. Now the question is, "given that everybody from Putin, to terrorists, Maduro, and North Korea have these weapons, do you want the US government facing them without such weapons ?" In an arms race, you can perhaps refuse to pull ahead (even that is risky), but nothing good will come of falling behind.
  - euyyn 9y ago
    Is there even real competition, though? Doesn't the US already have the military power of the 6 following nations combined, or something like that?
    - candiodari 9y ago
      If that's supposed to work like a threat to keep others in line, then of course, the US should work to (at least) maintain and (preferably) increase that power. Otherwise the threat won't matter. In other words, this depends on developing and demonstrating any and all weapons capabilities before others develop them, because if just one such technology provides an overwhelming advantage ... Furthermore, there can also be no doubt that the US would use such weapons to maintain it's own and it's allies' security. There can be no doubt that we'd fire such weapons at Russian armies attempting to invade the Ukranian parliament for example. More controversially, there can be no doubt that we'd fire them at not really civilian Palestinians if Israel's army loses control.
      - euyyn 9y ago
        > because if just one such technology provides an overwhelming advantage I don't think an autonomous Kalashnikov can overwhelm a squadron of drones, which aren't the most powerful thing in the US arsenal either. > There can be no doubt that we'd fire such weapons at Russian armies attempting to invade the Ukranian parliament for example. Haha well, they'll have to keep invading and leave just the parliament alone then.
lmm 9y ago
The M4 isn't infamous though? I don't even know which one that is. The M-16 is famous but associated more with militaries than with guerillas or terrorists. I can't really think of a US-made weapon with a reputation for disreputable uses - maybe the "Tommy Gun" (associated with gangsters, at least in the popular imagination)?
- Grangar 9y ago
  How about the Predator drone?
  - lou1306 9y ago
    Calling it infamous would be an understatement. That thing single-handedly attached a negative connotation to the term "drone".
- saiya-jin 9y ago
  You can see plenty of M-4/M-16/whatever (let's say AR-15 based weapons) in hands of bad guys in middle east, far east and africa. it's not like arms dealers have much morals to start with
- throwanem 9y ago
  The M4 and M16 are both versions of Eugene Stoner's AR-15 design. You know which one that is, even if you don't know you know it. Think about the last movie you saw that was made since 1980 and included American soldiers. What rifle were they carrying? There you go. There also exist many AR-15-pattern rifles in the civilian market - obviously without the full-auto and burst-fire modes one finds in military models, but otherwise quite similar. They're generally satisfactory firearms - cheap to feed, not unpleasant to use or overly difficult to maintain. They're also a longstanding bête noire of the anti-guns crowd, among whom the type is infamous because people have used them in a few mass shootings, and also because if you're afraid of firearms already then this type looks super extra scary - dressed in full tacticool ribs and Picatinny, it looks like something a Terminator might carry, and they're usually finished in black.
  - 9y ago
wmil 9y ago
It's a high reliability, low maintenance weapon. As a result the AK-47 is the weapon of choice for poorly trained armies. That gives it a worse reputation than most other rifles.
- marblar 9y ago
  Serious question: why would a non-poorly trained army select a more maintenance-heavy weapon? Would it have other benefits?
  - Koshkin 9y ago
    Lower reliability.
  - germinalphrase 9y ago
    Tighter tolerances can produce higher rates of fire and improved accuracy at the expense of reliability.
  - wmil 9y ago
    AR-15 base weapons (M16, M4) are much more accurate. So there's an advantage at distance. Also it uses smaller, faster rounds that have less stopping power, but are easier to carry. So there's a greater chance of running out of ammo with an AK-47.

RobertoG 9y ago

But it's not the same, the article makes it clear here: "Known informally inside the corridors of the Pentagon as 'the Terminator conundrum,' the question being asked is whether stifling the development of these types of weapons would actually allow other less ethically minded countries to leap ahead?" As a not American, I feel totally safe when it's the ethically minded USA who does it. Yep. That was sarcasm, sorry.

candiodari 9y ago
That was the question until the Kalashnikov announcement. Now the question is, "given that everybody from Putin, to terrorists, Maduro, and North Korea have these weapons, do you want the US government facing them without such weapons ?" In an arms race, you can perhaps refuse to pull ahead (even that is risky), but nothing good will come of falling behind.
- euyyn 9y ago
  Is there even real competition, though? Doesn't the US already have the military power of the 6 following nations combined, or something like that?
  - candiodari 9y ago
    If that's supposed to work like a threat to keep others in line, then of course, the US should work to (at least) maintain and (preferably) increase that power. Otherwise the threat won't matter. In other words, this depends on developing and demonstrating any and all weapons capabilities before others develop them, because if just one such technology provides an overwhelming advantage ... Furthermore, there can also be no doubt that the US would use such weapons to maintain it's own and it's allies' security. There can be no doubt that we'd fire such weapons at Russian armies attempting to invade the Ukranian parliament for example. More controversially, there can be no doubt that we'd fire them at not really civilian Palestinians if Israel's army loses control.
    - euyyn 9y ago
      > because if just one such technology provides an overwhelming advantage I don't think an autonomous Kalashnikov can overwhelm a squadron of drones, which aren't the most powerful thing in the US arsenal either. > There can be no doubt that we'd fire such weapons at Russian armies attempting to invade the Ukranian parliament for example. Haha well, they'll have to keep invading and leave just the parliament alone then.

lmm 9y ago

The M4 isn't infamous though? I don't even know which one that is. The M-16 is famous but associated more with militaries than with guerillas or terrorists. I can't really think of a US-made weapon with a reputation for disreputable uses - maybe the "Tommy Gun" (associated with gangsters, at least in the popular imagination)?

Grangar 9y ago
How about the Predator drone?
- lou1306 9y ago
  Calling it infamous would be an understatement. That thing single-handedly attached a negative connotation to the term "drone".
saiya-jin 9y ago
You can see plenty of M-4/M-16/whatever (let's say AR-15 based weapons) in hands of bad guys in middle east, far east and africa. it's not like arms dealers have much morals to start with
throwanem 9y ago
The M4 and M16 are both versions of Eugene Stoner's AR-15 design. You know which one that is, even if you don't know you know it. Think about the last movie you saw that was made since 1980 and included American soldiers. What rifle were they carrying? There you go. There also exist many AR-15-pattern rifles in the civilian market - obviously without the full-auto and burst-fire modes one finds in military models, but otherwise quite similar. They're generally satisfactory firearms - cheap to feed, not unpleasant to use or overly difficult to maintain. They're also a longstanding bête noire of the anti-guns crowd, among whom the type is infamous because people have used them in a few mass shootings, and also because if you're afraid of firearms already then this type looks super extra scary - dressed in full tacticool ribs and Picatinny, it looks like something a Terminator might carry, and they're usually finished in black.
- 9y ago

wmil 9y ago

It's a high reliability, low maintenance weapon. As a result the AK-47 is the weapon of choice for poorly trained armies. That gives it a worse reputation than most other rifles.

marblar 9y ago
Serious question: why would a non-poorly trained army select a more maintenance-heavy weapon? Would it have other benefits?
- Koshkin 9y ago
  Lower reliability.
- germinalphrase 9y ago
  Tighter tolerances can produce higher rates of fire and improved accuracy at the expense of reliability.
- wmil 9y ago
  AR-15 base weapons (M16, M4) are much more accurate. So there's an advantage at distance. Also it uses smaller, faster rounds that have less stopping power, but are easier to carry. So there's a greater chance of running out of ammo with an AK-47.