7 ms·

what do you think our rivals are doing right now? Sitting on their hands refusing to develop advanced threats? We must protect our country. Let’s not be naive

what do you think our rivals are doing right now? Sitting on their hands refusing to develop advanced threats? We must protect our country. Let’s not be naive to the fact that we have enemies who want to destroy us, or overtake us in power and influence if we’re weak. Personally I want the smartest people in the industry working on protecting our country and developing this tech. Which do you trust more, a self-flying UAV with deadly cargo developed by Google or some random government contractor?

adamnemecek 8y ago
That’s cool and all but it stops being cool when some of this tech ends up being sold to countries like Saudi Arabia. > Which do you trust more, a self-flying UAV with deadly cargo developed by Google or some random government contractor? Neither. Why would you want google to develop uavs?
- kurthr 8y ago
  Also stops being cool when all the self-surveillance and tools end up being compromised by adversaries. Don't create a weapon, if you don't want your enemies to have it too.
  - dba7dba 8y ago
    > Don't create a weapon, if you don't want your enemies to have it too. I'm thankful US Manhattan Project went on to successful completion, and not cancelled with above reasoning. The series "The Man in the High Castle" shows what could've happened IF Hitler first got his nukes before US did. Most would agree that Hitler would've used it on London/NYC/DC with no qualms...
    - jhbadger 8y ago
      I totally agree with the reasoning at the time to go ahead with the Manhattan Project. We didn't know if the Germans or Japanese were close to creating an atomic bomb themselves. But after the war we learned that neither the Germans nor Japanese were anywhere near close. On the other hand, thanks to Klaus Fuchs and other pro-Soviet workers on the Manhattan Project, secrets were passed to the Soviets (yes, our allies in the war, but everybody knew that after the war that they wouldn't be) that allowed the Soviets to build their own bomb just 4 years later. In retrospect, without the Manhattan Project, who knows when anyone would have invented the atomic bomb. Maybe nobody for decades.
      - mantas 8y ago
        One maybe USSR would have created one 10 or 20 years later, while USA would have none... Hindsight is 20/20. Why do you think no other country could match USA R&D now or in foreseeable future?
        dba7dba 8y ago
        Considering Sputnik happened, it's totally possible that USSR could've developed nukes if US had no Manhattan Project. And if that had happened, US (and rest of world) would've been really screwed. Manhattan Project used 1/7 of all electricity generated in US at the time. No way such gigantic project could've been conceived and completed in peace time in US. And definitely not fast enough if USSR had developed it first.
      - Gibbon1 8y ago
        > that allowed the Soviets to build their own bomb just 4 years later I think (not sure) Andrei Sakharov referred to Klaus Fuchs materials as a 'distraction'. Meaning it actually impeded their progress due to interference by Soviet political leaders. That's in line with a comment about the true nature of nuclear weapons 'secrets'. The secret isn't the design. The secrets are in the skills and technologies needed to manufacture a weapon. Which makes me think Klaus Fuchs and others were basically idiots.
  - Baeocystin 8y ago
    Do you think worldwide military uav research will stop if the US chooses to cease its own particular efforts? This is in no way intended as snark. It's a serious question. Where do we, as a society, put the dividing line between adequate, not enough, and too much military spending? I certainly agree that many of America's recent military actions have likely not been a net contributor to world stability. But I also think that the commonly presented idea that if we just stopped, somehow there wouldn't be anyone left that wants to cause damage to the states is naive. The United States is one of the most developed countries in the world, and to be near the top is to have a target on your back, one way or another.
    - jhbadger 8y ago
      At most a reasonable amount of military spending would be on par with US rivals. In 2017 the US spent $610 billion. China, $228 billion. Russia, $66 billion. And let's be honest, neither Russia nor China are going to invade the US, because they know that would start a nuclear war.
      - Baeocystin 8y ago
        Are you sure that your first sentence is a reasonable assumption? Is it not better to be clearly stronger, so as to be able to negotiate from a position of strength? And again, to be clear, these are good-faith questions. What is it that we lose, as a society, by spending as we do on our military? What is it that we gain? There are solid points in both columns. How does China's spend of ~228 billion compare in purchasing power to the US's 610? How does Russia's? What can we do to de-escalate the otherwise runaway cost of defense, while still maintaining a position of strength? I think Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex speech* from 1961 was exceptionally prescient, and we've done a poor job heeding the warnings. I also think that the general disdain I see on HN for most anything defense-related is an outlook only possible when one hasn't experienced living in actual conflict zones. We need to be able to talk about defense needs with clear, rational heads. * http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp
  - mantas 8y ago
    It doesn't work like that.. Source: hundreds of hours playing various Civ-series games.
40acres 8y ago
The high end government contractors (Northrup, Raytheon, etc.) all have quality engineering, and those who work for these companies know what they are getting into. I don't think most Googlers join the company with AI weaponry in mind.
ItsMe000001 8y ago
Do you mean the US (territory) itself is threatened, or do you mean the ability for "power projection" (to arbitrary places around the globe) is going to be hindered? What exactly is it that you fear? If another country were to surpass the US military capabilities, more budget, more high-tech, more soldiers (let's say all of those), do you think that alone would mean a territorial threat to the US? I mean, given that ever single country that isn't the US has lived with this exact situation for many decades, even if we assume it happens, why is that a problem? Even from a US point of view. When I say "US" I think we may also have to look at who exactly benefits, is it the majority of citizens? I think there are a lot of potential very interesting questions that could be asked and answered. Just saying "this is bad" is not enough, not by itself, but mostly because I think you can start some really good discussions if you look at details. This includes questions about how and why one comes to the opinion that one chooses to express, not just that opinion itself. Seeing the path, the justification, is I think very valuable. Even more so when such fears lead to such extraordinary results as never before seen weapons and same for military spending.
- Baeocystin 8y ago
  >even if we assume it happens, why is that a problem? Ukraine would have preferred holding on to Crimea, for one example.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    That wasn't due to lack of US force projection though - it was due to the Cold War realities of whether or not to escalate a conflict with another nuclear-armed country. (Plus the influence of Russian money in US politics; it's much cheaper to bribe the US not to fight back!)
    - Baeocystin 8y ago
      Not that I particularly disagree with your statement, but my point was more that if Ukraine itself had a more effective military force, this wouldn't have been something Russia could have done in the first place. Military strength matters. For us, and for everyone else.
omazurov 8y ago
And I personally want the smartest people in the industry to work on protecting the civilization from other smart people working on domination as a means of "protecting their country".
- dev_dull 8y ago
  what do you think they’re developing in China and Russia right now? What’s to stop China from forcibly reuniting Taiwan and Russia Ukraine? Without a deterrent, nothing. If we stigmatize building deterrents/weapons the other countries will step in and project their own values on the world because they’ll have to strength and technology to do so.
  - omazurov 8y ago
    I think they are developing means to protect their countries.
lifeformed 8y ago
Which countries are we in danger of being destroyed by?
- noobermin 8y ago
  The Russian Federation is one country. Of course, the right choice of action in my opinion is for NATO to step back from their border, and as bad as a person that Putin is, we should try to open a dialogue with them. That said, unilateral disarmament is foolish.
  - arrosenberg 8y ago
    President Obama tried this with the reset - it ended up with them interfering in our elections.
  - mantas 8y ago
    Being from a country that is a NATO member and borders Russia... We don't want to be another Ukraine or Georgia. Stepping back won't work for world peace. That'd be just another Czechoslovakia/Sudetenland situation.
colordrops 8y ago
We have enemies who want to destroy us precisely because we are out destroying others and making enemies. You've got your causality wrong here.
BobbyAlice 8y ago
It becomes a problem when rivals are cultures that do not accept the latest western explanations for human conditions, and we take a distinct side in the matter in the name of (national interests / business etc / flawed or failed popular culture social theories) with divisions present within our own society. Targeting shepards / nomadic cultures who despise the western LGBT* ideology using satellites, cruise missiles and AI is falling out of fashion. Western policies that target outspoken cultures on the complications of the LGBT* ideology in sparsely populated and non western style areas of justice makes more authoritarian leaders look good in the current power and control matrix across this increasingly small world we all live on. Instead of speaking 'Truth to Power' and appeal to common sense, western politics charted a course to "fudge because yes we Ca(i)n.". There is a clear and present danger of this generational make up (Old and Young) loosing true unitary cultural principles that forge a nation spiritually (Winning WWII), to instead only be chasing the lean mean money-making-machines servin' fiends (Mercenary Defense Operatives). Most people are too polite or too busy to get into the gritty, but the conundrums and hypocrisy of modern western culture is in full view.
newnewpdro 8y ago
There's enough ability to go around. Let the Raytheon's of the country employ their share of bright folks who willfully signed up for defense work become increasingly beholden to DoD contracts. Furthermore, it's not really in the best interests of the general public to have already too-powerful tech companies running the largest and most omnipresent domestic surveillance systems becoming increasingly dependent on defense budgets. Those contracts give the government more leverage over the companies they fund and create more conflicts of interests.
true_tuna 8y ago
Defend this country from what? The most relevant threats I see to the country today are erosions of our traditions of civil discourse which is fundamental to a functioning democracy (e.g we disagree, and through civil discourse we identify the precise ways we disagree, then we peacefully elect representatives to represent our points of view without resorting to violence. If we lose the ability to peacefully disagree or fairly elect our representatives, we are left with only one option and that leads to the destruction of our democracy and then our country is gone one way or another) and secondly the threat of large-scale conflict with an adversary with a comparable military. I just don’t see how increasing the efficiency of an already effective drone program protects against either of those threats. And as to the question of wanting people at google to work on it... I don’t think this sort of thing is what people join google to do. People interested in weapon systems probably go and work for known defense contractors and those companies do reasonably good work within the confines of their structure.
- dev_dull 8y ago
  We must protect ourselves from threats from without and without. It doesn’t make one any more or less important than the other.
ionised 8y ago
This is all just vague demagoguery.

adamnemecek 8y ago

That’s cool and all but it stops being cool when some of this tech ends up being sold to countries like Saudi Arabia. > Which do you trust more, a self-flying UAV with deadly cargo developed by Google or some random government contractor? Neither. Why would you want google to develop uavs?

kurthr 8y ago
Also stops being cool when all the self-surveillance and tools end up being compromised by adversaries. Don't create a weapon, if you don't want your enemies to have it too.
- dba7dba 8y ago
  > Don't create a weapon, if you don't want your enemies to have it too. I'm thankful US Manhattan Project went on to successful completion, and not cancelled with above reasoning. The series "The Man in the High Castle" shows what could've happened IF Hitler first got his nukes before US did. Most would agree that Hitler would've used it on London/NYC/DC with no qualms...
  - jhbadger 8y ago
    I totally agree with the reasoning at the time to go ahead with the Manhattan Project. We didn't know if the Germans or Japanese were close to creating an atomic bomb themselves. But after the war we learned that neither the Germans nor Japanese were anywhere near close. On the other hand, thanks to Klaus Fuchs and other pro-Soviet workers on the Manhattan Project, secrets were passed to the Soviets (yes, our allies in the war, but everybody knew that after the war that they wouldn't be) that allowed the Soviets to build their own bomb just 4 years later. In retrospect, without the Manhattan Project, who knows when anyone would have invented the atomic bomb. Maybe nobody for decades.
    - mantas 8y ago
      One maybe USSR would have created one 10 or 20 years later, while USA would have none... Hindsight is 20/20. Why do you think no other country could match USA R&D now or in foreseeable future?
      - dba7dba 8y ago
        Considering Sputnik happened, it's totally possible that USSR could've developed nukes if US had no Manhattan Project. And if that had happened, US (and rest of world) would've been really screwed. Manhattan Project used 1/7 of all electricity generated in US at the time. No way such gigantic project could've been conceived and completed in peace time in US. And definitely not fast enough if USSR had developed it first.
    - Gibbon1 8y ago
      > that allowed the Soviets to build their own bomb just 4 years later I think (not sure) Andrei Sakharov referred to Klaus Fuchs materials as a 'distraction'. Meaning it actually impeded their progress due to interference by Soviet political leaders. That's in line with a comment about the true nature of nuclear weapons 'secrets'. The secret isn't the design. The secrets are in the skills and technologies needed to manufacture a weapon. Which makes me think Klaus Fuchs and others were basically idiots.
- Baeocystin 8y ago
  Do you think worldwide military uav research will stop if the US chooses to cease its own particular efforts? This is in no way intended as snark. It's a serious question. Where do we, as a society, put the dividing line between adequate, not enough, and too much military spending? I certainly agree that many of America's recent military actions have likely not been a net contributor to world stability. But I also think that the commonly presented idea that if we just stopped, somehow there wouldn't be anyone left that wants to cause damage to the states is naive. The United States is one of the most developed countries in the world, and to be near the top is to have a target on your back, one way or another.
  - jhbadger 8y ago
    At most a reasonable amount of military spending would be on par with US rivals. In 2017 the US spent $610 billion. China, $228 billion. Russia, $66 billion. And let's be honest, neither Russia nor China are going to invade the US, because they know that would start a nuclear war.
    - Baeocystin 8y ago
      Are you sure that your first sentence is a reasonable assumption? Is it not better to be clearly stronger, so as to be able to negotiate from a position of strength? And again, to be clear, these are good-faith questions. What is it that we lose, as a society, by spending as we do on our military? What is it that we gain? There are solid points in both columns. How does China's spend of ~228 billion compare in purchasing power to the US's 610? How does Russia's? What can we do to de-escalate the otherwise runaway cost of defense, while still maintaining a position of strength? I think Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex speech* from 1961 was exceptionally prescient, and we've done a poor job heeding the warnings. I also think that the general disdain I see on HN for most anything defense-related is an outlook only possible when one hasn't experienced living in actual conflict zones. We need to be able to talk about defense needs with clear, rational heads. * http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp
- mantas 8y ago
  It doesn't work like that.. Source: hundreds of hours playing various Civ-series games.

40acres 8y ago

The high end government contractors (Northrup, Raytheon, etc.) all have quality engineering, and those who work for these companies know what they are getting into. I don't think most Googlers join the company with AI weaponry in mind.

ItsMe000001 8y ago

Do you mean the US (territory) itself is threatened, or do you mean the ability for "power projection" (to arbitrary places around the globe) is going to be hindered? What exactly is it that you fear? If another country were to surpass the US military capabilities, more budget, more high-tech, more soldiers (let's say all of those), do you think that alone would mean a territorial threat to the US? I mean, given that ever single country that isn't the US has lived with this exact situation for many decades, even if we assume it happens, why is that a problem? Even from a US point of view. When I say "US" I think we may also have to look at who exactly benefits, is it the majority of citizens? I think there are a lot of potential very interesting questions that could be asked and answered. Just saying "this is bad" is not enough, not by itself, but mostly because I think you can start some really good discussions if you look at details. This includes questions about how and why one comes to the opinion that one chooses to express, not just that opinion itself. Seeing the path, the justification, is I think very valuable. Even more so when such fears lead to such extraordinary results as never before seen weapons and same for military spending.

Baeocystin 8y ago
>even if we assume it happens, why is that a problem? Ukraine would have preferred holding on to Crimea, for one example.
- pjc50 8y ago
  That wasn't due to lack of US force projection though - it was due to the Cold War realities of whether or not to escalate a conflict with another nuclear-armed country. (Plus the influence of Russian money in US politics; it's much cheaper to bribe the US not to fight back!)
  - Baeocystin 8y ago
    Not that I particularly disagree with your statement, but my point was more that if Ukraine itself had a more effective military force, this wouldn't have been something Russia could have done in the first place. Military strength matters. For us, and for everyone else.

omazurov 8y ago

And I personally want the smartest people in the industry to work on protecting the civilization from other smart people working on domination as a means of "protecting their country".

dev_dull 8y ago
what do you think they’re developing in China and Russia right now? What’s to stop China from forcibly reuniting Taiwan and Russia Ukraine? Without a deterrent, nothing. If we stigmatize building deterrents/weapons the other countries will step in and project their own values on the world because they’ll have to strength and technology to do so.
- omazurov 8y ago
  I think they are developing means to protect their countries.

lifeformed 8y ago

Which countries are we in danger of being destroyed by?

noobermin 8y ago
The Russian Federation is one country. Of course, the right choice of action in my opinion is for NATO to step back from their border, and as bad as a person that Putin is, we should try to open a dialogue with them. That said, unilateral disarmament is foolish.
- arrosenberg 8y ago
  President Obama tried this with the reset - it ended up with them interfering in our elections.
- mantas 8y ago
  Being from a country that is a NATO member and borders Russia... We don't want to be another Ukraine or Georgia. Stepping back won't work for world peace. That'd be just another Czechoslovakia/Sudetenland situation.

colordrops 8y ago

We have enemies who want to destroy us precisely because we are out destroying others and making enemies. You've got your causality wrong here.

BobbyAlice 8y ago

It becomes a problem when rivals are cultures that do not accept the latest western explanations for human conditions, and we take a distinct side in the matter in the name of (national interests / business etc / flawed or failed popular culture social theories) with divisions present within our own society. Targeting shepards / nomadic cultures who despise the western LGBT* ideology using satellites, cruise missiles and AI is falling out of fashion. Western policies that target outspoken cultures on the complications of the LGBT* ideology in sparsely populated and non western style areas of justice makes more authoritarian leaders look good in the current power and control matrix across this increasingly small world we all live on. Instead of speaking 'Truth to Power' and appeal to common sense, western politics charted a course to "fudge because yes we Ca(i)n.". There is a clear and present danger of this generational make up (Old and Young) loosing true unitary cultural principles that forge a nation spiritually (Winning WWII), to instead only be chasing the lean mean money-making-machines servin' fiends (Mercenary Defense Operatives). Most people are too polite or too busy to get into the gritty, but the conundrums and hypocrisy of modern western culture is in full view.

newnewpdro 8y ago

There's enough ability to go around. Let the Raytheon's of the country employ their share of bright folks who willfully signed up for defense work become increasingly beholden to DoD contracts. Furthermore, it's not really in the best interests of the general public to have already too-powerful tech companies running the largest and most omnipresent domestic surveillance systems becoming increasingly dependent on defense budgets. Those contracts give the government more leverage over the companies they fund and create more conflicts of interests.

true_tuna 8y ago

Defend this country from what? The most relevant threats I see to the country today are erosions of our traditions of civil discourse which is fundamental to a functioning democracy (e.g we disagree, and through civil discourse we identify the precise ways we disagree, then we peacefully elect representatives to represent our points of view without resorting to violence. If we lose the ability to peacefully disagree or fairly elect our representatives, we are left with only one option and that leads to the destruction of our democracy and then our country is gone one way or another) and secondly the threat of large-scale conflict with an adversary with a comparable military. I just don’t see how increasing the efficiency of an already effective drone program protects against either of those threats. And as to the question of wanting people at google to work on it... I don’t think this sort of thing is what people join google to do. People interested in weapon systems probably go and work for known defense contractors and those companies do reasonably good work within the confines of their structure.

dev_dull 8y ago
We must protect ourselves from threats from without and without. It doesn’t make one any more or less important than the other.

ionised 8y ago

This is all just vague demagoguery.