3 ms·

> "The history of technology and the military in the US is more complex than the myopic "Military is Bad" style of arguments that have been vogue as of late."

> "The history of technology and the military in the US is more complex than the myopic "Military is Bad" style of arguments that have been vogue as of late." It seems to me the "Military is Bad" idea goes back to 60's and is more about "the status quo U.S. foreign interference system is bad" than the myopic "the Military is Bad in principle" you seem to suggest. People mostly know it is important to have a military. But that does not mean supporting all its current activities. > "Preventing the US military from using that technology doesn't stop China or Russia from upgrading their systems to use it." I think the general opposition to drones killing people is directed at all countries, not just the U.S.A., so your response is no argument. The history of technology and military also shows that Russia and China creating new dangerous ways of killing and destruction is closely linked to U.S. technology lead. One can go as far as say that the faster the U.S. develops it, the faster the Russians and Chinese will have it. The only working way to prevent those technologies from being used on people is to desist developing them, guard the existing ones and agree on not using them - treaties, like for nukes, bioweapons, etc.

bb88 8y ago
> It seems to me the "Military is Bad" idea goes back to 60's and is more about "the status quo U.S. foreign interference system is bad" than the myopic "the Military is Bad in principle" you seem to suggest. You may be right, but that's an issue with the white house administration and those telling the military what to do, not with the military itself. It has always seemed to me that if you never liked what the military was doing, it was a political disgreement, not an issue with the military itself. > I think the general opposition to drones killing people is directed at all countries, not just the U.S.A., so your response is no argument. > The history of technology and military also shows that Russia and China creating new dangerous ways of killing and destruction is closely linked to U.S. technology lead. It seems to me that wanting military superiority (or equality in some cases) is enough of a reason to pursue new weapon systems, and that will happen regardless of whether or not the US has the technology. Einstein sent a letter to the US president in 1939, and then two more in 1940 to warn the US of upcoming technological advances and urged the US to start a nuclear weapons program. I mention this, because we developed nuclear weapons out of fear that someone else would do it, and we needed a deterrent. And that was obvious to people like Einstein. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1rd_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1rd_... > The only working way to prevent those technologies from being used on people is to desist developing them, guard the existing ones and agree on not using them - treaties, like for nukes, bioweapons, etc. That was a good approach 30 years ago, when we were fighting nation states. Now we're fighting large terrorist organizations that exist without a geographical border -- the types of people that would never sign a treaty.
- squarefoot 8y ago
  "That was a good approach 30 years ago, when we were fighting nation states. Now we're fighting large terrorist organizations that exist without a geographical border -- the types of people that would never sign a treaty." True, but this doesn't require AI drones. To me that is just well crafted propaganda to make people (voters) accept further military expenses. Name one terrorist attack anywhere in the world in the last 20 years, therefore including 9/11, that could have been stopped by a swarm of AI drones (1). Today terrorism can be fought only with intelligence ops and cooperation between nations; we're talking about people either using AK47s and explosives just like 30 years ago, or driving vans to hit pedestrians. There's no war declaration in advance, therefore there's no identifiable enemy until the precise moment they hit. In this scenario you can't stop their action no matter the weapons at your disposal, not even alien technology, death rays, sharks with friggin lasers on their back or the Millennium Falcon itself. Enemies like those can be fought in one way: knowing them, foreseeing their moves and possibly infiltrating them, all actions involving intelligence, not weapons; with the right approach we don't need anything more advanced than what was available decades ago to fight them. But of course this reasoning doesn't help the weapon industry, so their puppets are instructed to brainwash people into thinking we need ultra advanced technologies when it's utter bullshit created to protect the weapons business. (1) Actually the 9/11 attacks outcome could have been reduced by using AI drones, if they existed back then. Let's say the control tower operators realized a terrorist attack was in act on a number of planes and they knew the terrorists were going to crash some of them onto populated buildings (which is unlikely as it was unheard of before, but let's just pretend that). A swarm of AI equipped drones could have been instructed to patrol every plane literally following it so that in case of an attack each drone could down the plane to reduce the number of victims. All fine, and in this context it could work: tune the drone to the airplane transponder and let it share the plane flight plan, so that it can identify immediately if it deviates from route; if it does check with traffic control and the military and if they command so, hit the plane. What could possibly go wrong? I'm not sure I'd want these things flying over my head 24/7 or behind my plane, not even for good reasons.
  - bb88 8y ago
    > True, but this doesn't require AI drones. You're right. They require bombs and bullets. Both have a far higher chance of collateral damage than using drones. But apparently everyone has deemed them more acceptable than possible alternatives, so we use them. > Name one terrorist attack anywhere in the world in the last 20 years, therefore including 9/11, that could have been stopped by a swarm of AI drones. You've given me a false choice. Namely that only defending against terrorist attacks is the only legitimate purpose. Many others probably exist too. Last time I checked urban warfare was a fairly dicey situation for military personnel. Anything that can navigate, map, and neutralize enemy hostiles in a building, means less death rates for our soldiers.

bb88 8y ago

> It seems to me the "Military is Bad" idea goes back to 60's and is more about "the status quo U.S. foreign interference system is bad" than the myopic "the Military is Bad in principle" you seem to suggest. You may be right, but that's an issue with the white house administration and those telling the military what to do, not with the military itself. It has always seemed to me that if you never liked what the military was doing, it was a political disgreement, not an issue with the military itself. > I think the general opposition to drones killing people is directed at all countries, not just the U.S.A., so your response is no argument. > The history of technology and military also shows that Russia and China creating new dangerous ways of killing and destruction is closely linked to U.S. technology lead. It seems to me that wanting military superiority (or equality in some cases) is enough of a reason to pursue new weapon systems, and that will happen regardless of whether or not the US has the technology. Einstein sent a letter to the US president in 1939, and then two more in 1940 to warn the US of upcoming technological advances and urged the US to start a nuclear weapons program. I mention this, because we developed nuclear weapons out of fear that someone else would do it, and we needed a deterrent. And that was obvious to people like Einstein. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1rd_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1rd_... > The only working way to prevent those technologies from being used on people is to desist developing them, guard the existing ones and agree on not using them - treaties, like for nukes, bioweapons, etc. That was a good approach 30 years ago, when we were fighting nation states. Now we're fighting large terrorist organizations that exist without a geographical border -- the types of people that would never sign a treaty.

squarefoot 8y ago
"That was a good approach 30 years ago, when we were fighting nation states. Now we're fighting large terrorist organizations that exist without a geographical border -- the types of people that would never sign a treaty." True, but this doesn't require AI drones. To me that is just well crafted propaganda to make people (voters) accept further military expenses. Name one terrorist attack anywhere in the world in the last 20 years, therefore including 9/11, that could have been stopped by a swarm of AI drones (1). Today terrorism can be fought only with intelligence ops and cooperation between nations; we're talking about people either using AK47s and explosives just like 30 years ago, or driving vans to hit pedestrians. There's no war declaration in advance, therefore there's no identifiable enemy until the precise moment they hit. In this scenario you can't stop their action no matter the weapons at your disposal, not even alien technology, death rays, sharks with friggin lasers on their back or the Millennium Falcon itself. Enemies like those can be fought in one way: knowing them, foreseeing their moves and possibly infiltrating them, all actions involving intelligence, not weapons; with the right approach we don't need anything more advanced than what was available decades ago to fight them. But of course this reasoning doesn't help the weapon industry, so their puppets are instructed to brainwash people into thinking we need ultra advanced technologies when it's utter bullshit created to protect the weapons business. (1) Actually the 9/11 attacks outcome could have been reduced by using AI drones, if they existed back then. Let's say the control tower operators realized a terrorist attack was in act on a number of planes and they knew the terrorists were going to crash some of them onto populated buildings (which is unlikely as it was unheard of before, but let's just pretend that). A swarm of AI equipped drones could have been instructed to patrol every plane literally following it so that in case of an attack each drone could down the plane to reduce the number of victims. All fine, and in this context it could work: tune the drone to the airplane transponder and let it share the plane flight plan, so that it can identify immediately if it deviates from route; if it does check with traffic control and the military and if they command so, hit the plane. What could possibly go wrong? I'm not sure I'd want these things flying over my head 24/7 or behind my plane, not even for good reasons.
- bb88 8y ago
  > True, but this doesn't require AI drones. You're right. They require bombs and bullets. Both have a far higher chance of collateral damage than using drones. But apparently everyone has deemed them more acceptable than possible alternatives, so we use them. > Name one terrorist attack anywhere in the world in the last 20 years, therefore including 9/11, that could have been stopped by a swarm of AI drones. You've given me a false choice. Namely that only defending against terrorist attacks is the only legitimate purpose. Many others probably exist too. Last time I checked urban warfare was a fairly dicey situation for military personnel. Anything that can navigate, map, and neutralize enemy hostiles in a building, means less death rates for our soldiers.