7 ms·

Serious question for those who agree with this petition. Which country's military would you like to see be the most technologically advanced in 20 years?

awakeasleep 9y ago
Doesn't the fact that this is another step towards autonomous killing machines complicate your view of this? A lot of Silicon Valley's justification for its immoral actions rests on the _belief_ of the inevitability of outcomes. It's ok to monopolize and centralize everything, discarding the lives of people who are negatively impacted because it's inevitable. It's ok to make robots able to kill people better because it's inevitable, etc. The thing is, it's a _belief_ that this is inevitable — not a proven fact of nature. And people who don't believe in it will logically withdraw their cooperation from building that future. Both sides are 'proving' their point of view. If enough people object, then it wasn't inevitable after all. If enough people work to bring us into that future, maybe it was. But thats the struggle and moral choice we face.
- coryfklein 9y ago
  I find it pretty easy to believe that other countries will continue to funnel money into military operations even if the US slows or stops. No, I can't prove that. But it seems like a very reasonable belief to have. What reason do you have to believe that it won't be so?
  - larkeith 9y ago
    The reason to believe it won't be so is the same reason not all tragedies of the common end in resource exhaustion - cooperation is possible, especially in such an internationally-connected industry as software development. From a less grassroots perspective, international regulations and sanctions tend to be fairly effective.
- ihsw2 9y ago
  The free world does have enemies! We must seek them out!
piker 9y ago
Switzerland
- JorgeGT 9y ago
  The Blackwater of the Middle Ages. Still providing mercenaries to guard Europe's last absolute monarch.
IAmEveryone 9y ago
I'd vote for Belgium. More seriously: the US has nuclear weapons, rendering them safe from any direct confrontation with enemies challenging them technologically. They have a conventional military 10x the size needed for the sort of intervention that actually succeeded in the past (the Balkans, the first Gulf war). The rather unsuccessful wars (Afghanistan, Iraq) were lost not for technological reasons or any other dimension of military might, but because the US military sucks at convincing people of the benefits of democracy. Want to win the next ten wars? Put the money into Hollywood blockbusters and the world's best Halal fast food chain.
- friedman23 9y ago
  >I'd vote for Belgium. I always laugh when people suggest these meek tiny European states should be in charge of running the world and how much more civilized they are. The reality is that these countries aren't meek by choice and we already know from history what a country like Belgium would do if given a tiny sliver of power.
  - givehimagun 9y ago
    I would focus on the word tiny in your statement. America has to solve problems at scale. California has 3 million more people than Canada. America is a federation of 50 states. The EU is trying to become a federation of the European states.
- gaius 9y ago
  I'd vote for Belgium. Belgian atrocities in the Congo suggests that would be a very, very poor choice
  - exolymph 9y ago
    By the "atrocities in the past" metric, any country would be a bad choice. The Trail of Tears comes to mind.
    - roywiggins 9y ago
stale2002 9y ago
I don't particularly care. Nukes are enough to stop any war from happening between any of the most powerful countries in the world. What else do we even need? The various factions in the various civil wars around the world can kill themselves in their own war, and we shouldn't be a part of it killing even more people.
- mantas 9y ago
  What about smaller countries without the nukes? Fall to the next door neighbour, regardless if you like their regime or not?
sseth 9y ago
As an Indian, I hope it is the USA. At the end of the day, it has to be a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural democracy or I fear for what the world will become. And I say that even while agreeing that many military actions the US has taken in the past have been terrible. Note : I do not agree with the petition, but the question was too tempting.
Asdfbla 9y ago
There's certainly enough opportunity to work for a more peaceful world instead - scenarios where two large military powers clash should probably better be avoided anyway, so it's probably even a more productive use of one's time than optimizing for yet another variant of mutually assured destruction.
- coryfklein 9y ago
  Pacifism is all well and good when the other guy doesn't want to kill you. Until we get to that point, I'm happy with the US policy of having an overwhelmingly dominant force as a deterrent.
JustAnotherPat 9y ago
After a certain point it's irrelevant. Soviets developed the Tsar Bomba; should the US have tried to one up them?
- bpicolo 9y ago
  We did one up them, over and over again - just with strategies other than "make one bigger bomb".
  - YetAnotherNick 9y ago
    Really? How? You can say that world has more impact due to US's military, but how has russia been one uped ever?
    - jackaroe78 9y ago
      The US did it with significantly fewer bullets to the back of necks & babies going hungry.
    - bpicolo 9y ago
      There's a crap ton of tech in the military world, and the US is generally the most advanced at a lot of it. Both public knowledge (F-22/F-35, THAAD, aircraft carriers) and all the other sorts of crap - satellites/surveillance tech, software (stuxnet), whatever. The arms race never stopped, it's just not about making singularly bigger bombs anymore, because they're plenty big to destroy the whole planet many times over. The US isn't spending 800 billion a year on nothing.
PunchTornado 9y ago
None. I would like most of them to stay unadvanced.
- Zeebrommer 9y ago
  There will always be one most advanced though.
- YetAnotherNick 9y ago
  This sums up the entire event in one sentence. Deflecting the question and continue to live in some inconsistent bubble.
larkeith 9y ago
This feels like Begging the Question - your post implies that AI targeting will: A) not be developed without support from Google, which is categorically untrue; The DoD might simply find it more difficult to acquire top talent if that talent is opposed to the work on philosophical grounds. And B) be necessary for the US military to remain the most advanced and/or powerful in 20 years, which is also exceptionally doubtful - unless you believe ML to have such effective wartime applications as to render a nearly threefold larger military budget (compared to China, the next largest) moot.

awakeasleep 9y ago

Doesn't the fact that this is another step towards autonomous killing machines complicate your view of this? A lot of Silicon Valley's justification for its immoral actions rests on the _belief_ of the inevitability of outcomes. It's ok to monopolize and centralize everything, discarding the lives of people who are negatively impacted because it's inevitable. It's ok to make robots able to kill people better because it's inevitable, etc. The thing is, it's a _belief_ that this is inevitable — not a proven fact of nature. And people who don't believe in it will logically withdraw their cooperation from building that future. Both sides are 'proving' their point of view. If enough people object, then it wasn't inevitable after all. If enough people work to bring us into that future, maybe it was. But thats the struggle and moral choice we face.

coryfklein 9y ago
I find it pretty easy to believe that other countries will continue to funnel money into military operations even if the US slows or stops. No, I can't prove that. But it seems like a very reasonable belief to have. What reason do you have to believe that it won't be so?
- larkeith 9y ago
  The reason to believe it won't be so is the same reason not all tragedies of the common end in resource exhaustion - cooperation is possible, especially in such an internationally-connected industry as software development. From a less grassroots perspective, international regulations and sanctions tend to be fairly effective.
ihsw2 9y ago
The free world does have enemies! We must seek them out!

piker 9y ago

Switzerland

JorgeGT 9y ago
The Blackwater of the Middle Ages. Still providing mercenaries to guard Europe's last absolute monarch.

IAmEveryone 9y ago

I'd vote for Belgium. More seriously: the US has nuclear weapons, rendering them safe from any direct confrontation with enemies challenging them technologically. They have a conventional military 10x the size needed for the sort of intervention that actually succeeded in the past (the Balkans, the first Gulf war). The rather unsuccessful wars (Afghanistan, Iraq) were lost not for technological reasons or any other dimension of military might, but because the US military sucks at convincing people of the benefits of democracy. Want to win the next ten wars? Put the money into Hollywood blockbusters and the world's best Halal fast food chain.

friedman23 9y ago
>I'd vote for Belgium. I always laugh when people suggest these meek tiny European states should be in charge of running the world and how much more civilized they are. The reality is that these countries aren't meek by choice and we already know from history what a country like Belgium would do if given a tiny sliver of power.
- givehimagun 9y ago
  I would focus on the word tiny in your statement. America has to solve problems at scale. California has 3 million more people than Canada. America is a federation of 50 states. The EU is trying to become a federation of the European states.
gaius 9y ago
I'd vote for Belgium. Belgian atrocities in the Congo suggests that would be a very, very poor choice
- exolymph 9y ago
  By the "atrocities in the past" metric, any country would be a bad choice. The Trail of Tears comes to mind.
  - roywiggins 9y ago

stale2002 9y ago

I don't particularly care. Nukes are enough to stop any war from happening between any of the most powerful countries in the world. What else do we even need? The various factions in the various civil wars around the world can kill themselves in their own war, and we shouldn't be a part of it killing even more people.

mantas 9y ago
What about smaller countries without the nukes? Fall to the next door neighbour, regardless if you like their regime or not?

sseth 9y ago

As an Indian, I hope it is the USA. At the end of the day, it has to be a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural democracy or I fear for what the world will become. And I say that even while agreeing that many military actions the US has taken in the past have been terrible. Note : I do not agree with the petition, but the question was too tempting.

Asdfbla 9y ago

There's certainly enough opportunity to work for a more peaceful world instead - scenarios where two large military powers clash should probably better be avoided anyway, so it's probably even a more productive use of one's time than optimizing for yet another variant of mutually assured destruction.

coryfklein 9y ago
Pacifism is all well and good when the other guy doesn't want to kill you. Until we get to that point, I'm happy with the US policy of having an overwhelmingly dominant force as a deterrent.

JustAnotherPat 9y ago

After a certain point it's irrelevant. Soviets developed the Tsar Bomba; should the US have tried to one up them?

bpicolo 9y ago
We did one up them, over and over again - just with strategies other than "make one bigger bomb".
- YetAnotherNick 9y ago
  Really? How? You can say that world has more impact due to US's military, but how has russia been one uped ever?
  - jackaroe78 9y ago
    The US did it with significantly fewer bullets to the back of necks & babies going hungry.
  - bpicolo 9y ago
    There's a crap ton of tech in the military world, and the US is generally the most advanced at a lot of it. Both public knowledge (F-22/F-35, THAAD, aircraft carriers) and all the other sorts of crap - satellites/surveillance tech, software (stuxnet), whatever. The arms race never stopped, it's just not about making singularly bigger bombs anymore, because they're plenty big to destroy the whole planet many times over. The US isn't spending 800 billion a year on nothing.

PunchTornado 9y ago

None. I would like most of them to stay unadvanced.

Zeebrommer 9y ago
There will always be one most advanced though.
YetAnotherNick 9y ago
This sums up the entire event in one sentence. Deflecting the question and continue to live in some inconsistent bubble.

larkeith 9y ago

This feels like Begging the Question - your post implies that AI targeting will: A) not be developed without support from Google, which is categorically untrue; The DoD might simply find it more difficult to acquire top talent if that talent is opposed to the work on philosophical grounds. And B) be necessary for the US military to remain the most advanced and/or powerful in 20 years, which is also exceptionally doubtful - unless you believe ML to have such effective wartime applications as to render a nearly threefold larger military budget (compared to China, the next largest) moot.