4 ms·

Use of force is a separate problem from the development of weapons. I don't really have a problem with startups doing weapons development - someone is going to

Use of force is a separate problem from the development of weapons. I don't really have a problem with startups doing weapons development - someone is going to do it, and I have a hard time seeing how the world would be better if China or Russia took the lead on this.

tehjoker 8y ago
I would point out that if the US is already spending more money on arms than the next several countries combined, I don't think this is the relevant issue. If another power was strong enough to threaten our defenses, that would be one thing but clearly there is something much bigger going on (I would say it is the US empire, at least according to a senior official in the Bush administration: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community). I hesitate to make this argument because I think they should be abolished, but if we have nukes, why do we need new "defensive" weapons? The only reason is to be able to control events in other parts of the world to the benefit of the people that start the wars. This perspective would imply that we should not be encouraging our citizens to devote their energies to devising ways to kill (i.e. form startups around "defense").
- ethbro 8y ago
  Because a world in which many parties have strategic nuclear defense AND sufficient non-nuclear forces is more stable and less conflict prone than a world in which major powers possess only nuclear weapons. Such was the worry about Cold War Germany: had Russia attacked with conventional forces, the US would have been all but required to escalate quickly to nuclear weapons. Similarly in Korea. If the Inchon landings hadn't been successful, it's a coin flip as to whether the US would have nuked North Korea, Russia, and/or China. Truman, LeMay, and MacArthur were all prepared to go to the mat for South Korea and Taiwan. https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/how-korean-war-almost-went-nuclear-180955324/ https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/how-korean-war...
- dgudkov 8y ago
  >but if we have nukes, why do we need new "defensive" weapons? Nukes are neither purely offensive nor defensive weapon (except low-scale tactical ones). They solve the task of strategic deterrence [1]. There are many other tasks that nukes can't and don't solve. It seems like your knowledge of the subject is somewhat shallow and hence the scorn. I highly recommend learning a bit more about defense -- its goals, problems, and ways to solve them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
r00fus 8y ago
> someone is going to do it You could use that excuse for almost anything morally repugnant.
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  Sure, but when it comes to power, you can't wish away its existence. Someone will have it. So how do you best mitigate the bad effects it can have? Do you let an entity which does not align with your interests have it? Or do you maintain it and work to iteratively improve your exercise of it? The effect of wishing away power instead of grappling with it and bending it to justice is one of the central reason why many revolutions and movements have failed.
  - andai 8y ago
    Non US Citizen here (haven't even visited yet), and pretty anti-military. But out of available options, I would definitely prefer the USA have the military upper hand. I suppose that means, I could do my part to keep it that way, by investing in US defense contractors. (Have been looking for investment opportunities.) Something to think about.
  - k9s9 8y ago
    Agree. But I think global power dynamics have changed and with that military spending/militaristic posture will go down the way it did with the end of the British Empire or colonial powers of Europe. If there is another triggering event like 9/11 (which kept the defense industry alive), it will be a real surprise to see the US muster a response the way they did in the past.
- rndmize 8y ago
  You misunderstand - it's not an excuse. I simply expect that in the next 50 years, autonomous weapons will be developed, by someone - the only question is who. The potential value it too great for it not to happen. Consider, for example, nuclear weapons. I think it's generally agreed these days that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unnecessary at best, a war crime at worst - but I don't really see that a better world would have resulted from the USSR or Germany being the first to obtain nukes.

tehjoker 8y ago

I would point out that if the US is already spending more money on arms than the next several countries combined, I don't think this is the relevant issue. If another power was strong enough to threaten our defenses, that would be one thing but clearly there is something much bigger going on (I would say it is the US empire, at least according to a senior official in the Bush administration: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community). I hesitate to make this argument because I think they should be abolished, but if we have nukes, why do we need new "defensive" weapons? The only reason is to be able to control events in other parts of the world to the benefit of the people that start the wars. This perspective would imply that we should not be encouraging our citizens to devote their energies to devising ways to kill (i.e. form startups around "defense").

ethbro 8y ago
Because a world in which many parties have strategic nuclear defense AND sufficient non-nuclear forces is more stable and less conflict prone than a world in which major powers possess only nuclear weapons. Such was the worry about Cold War Germany: had Russia attacked with conventional forces, the US would have been all but required to escalate quickly to nuclear weapons. Similarly in Korea. If the Inchon landings hadn't been successful, it's a coin flip as to whether the US would have nuked North Korea, Russia, and/or China. Truman, LeMay, and MacArthur were all prepared to go to the mat for South Korea and Taiwan. https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/how-korean-war-almost-went-nuclear-180955324/ https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/how-korean-war...
dgudkov 8y ago
>but if we have nukes, why do we need new "defensive" weapons? Nukes are neither purely offensive nor defensive weapon (except low-scale tactical ones). They solve the task of strategic deterrence [1]. There are many other tasks that nukes can't and don't solve. It seems like your knowledge of the subject is somewhat shallow and hence the scorn. I highly recommend learning a bit more about defense -- its goals, problems, and ways to solve them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

r00fus 8y ago

> someone is going to do it You could use that excuse for almost anything morally repugnant.

ABCLAW 8y ago
Sure, but when it comes to power, you can't wish away its existence. Someone will have it. So how do you best mitigate the bad effects it can have? Do you let an entity which does not align with your interests have it? Or do you maintain it and work to iteratively improve your exercise of it? The effect of wishing away power instead of grappling with it and bending it to justice is one of the central reason why many revolutions and movements have failed.
- andai 8y ago
  Non US Citizen here (haven't even visited yet), and pretty anti-military. But out of available options, I would definitely prefer the USA have the military upper hand. I suppose that means, I could do my part to keep it that way, by investing in US defense contractors. (Have been looking for investment opportunities.) Something to think about.
- k9s9 8y ago
  Agree. But I think global power dynamics have changed and with that military spending/militaristic posture will go down the way it did with the end of the British Empire or colonial powers of Europe. If there is another triggering event like 9/11 (which kept the defense industry alive), it will be a real surprise to see the US muster a response the way they did in the past.
rndmize 8y ago
You misunderstand - it's not an excuse. I simply expect that in the next 50 years, autonomous weapons will be developed, by someone - the only question is who. The potential value it too great for it not to happen. Consider, for example, nuclear weapons. I think it's generally agreed these days that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unnecessary at best, a war crime at worst - but I don't really see that a better world would have resulted from the USSR or Germany being the first to obtain nukes.