3 ms·

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 bein

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.

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.