4 ms·

So I see this was downvoted without any effort to rebut the story... Anyone care to explain? It should also be mentioned that the drone I linked to above was

So I see this was downvoted without any effort to rebut the story... Anyone care to explain? It should also be mentioned that the drone I linked to above was being shown at an arms show, and is essentially being offered for sale to all comers. I'm sure there'll be healthy sales to some of the more autocratic/aggressive nations out there...

iliketosleep 8y ago
I totally agree with your point and have raised this issue before (but not here). Most people prefer to bury their heads in the sand rather than confront these uncomfortable and complicated dilemmas. I believe the scientists in question would not be calling for this kind of ban if their sons and daughters were sent into battle against nations equipped with such weapons - in fact, they would be cooperating to develop this very technology if it meant protecting their loved ones. It's easy to be an idealist, until you've truly got something to lose. I think a lot of people need to be reminded of this.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  So, I had to reread your middle para because I honestly thought you were heading an entirely different direction. Do you think it should be legal for citizens to carry RPGs, machine guns, grenades, ..., so they never have to go in to a room in which someone else might have more firepower?
  - michaelt 8y ago
    Pretty sure iliketosleep means "if their sons and daughters were in the military during a war, and were sent into battle" - after all, it'd be unusual to be sent into battle in any other circumstances. And yes, I think most people agree it should be legal for soldiers to carry machine guns and grenades when in warzones during wars.
    - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      You misunderstood me. I was asking the question I wished the parent to answer. The point the GP made was seemingly that we shouldn't let potential enemies have better weapons (autonomous drones), denying them for ourselves. Yes, I assumed they were considering the context of state sanctioned aggression. I wondered if they only found that reasoning appropriate for states, or in general. One could ask "should we always seek for the most terrible weapons to be legal in any context in order to ensure no enemy can outmatch us due to restraints of law?".
      - Konnstann 8y ago
        I think that reasoning is valid for state-sanctioned aggression, or war to be precise. Personally I think that as long as collateral damage is minimal, we should strive to develop the most deadly, most efficient weapons we can, specifically for the purposes of deterring unchecked aggression. I don't think GP was making an argument that I should carry an AK-47 on me so that any muggers i come across are less likely to out-arm me.
        pbhjpbhj 8y ago
        Thanks. Per your 2nd para, why not, what's different in you legally allowing the availability of the most deadly means in the two contexts?
        Konnstann 8y ago
        Nation-states cannot, in my mind, be compared to individuals when it comes to propensity for aggression. The vast majority of individuals, in, say the U.S. are not armed, whereas the majority of nation-states have a military. Furthermore, the countries that are in proximity to "aggressive" states either have a strong military e.g. Israel, or have military presence from other countries with strong militaries e.g. South Korea. Also, the distances between different countries vs the spread of information is also vastly different. It is harder to commit an international act of violence with no witnesses than it is an interpersonal one, and the threat of retaliation keeps violence at bay, for the most part at least.

iliketosleep 8y ago

I totally agree with your point and have raised this issue before (but not here). Most people prefer to bury their heads in the sand rather than confront these uncomfortable and complicated dilemmas. I believe the scientists in question would not be calling for this kind of ban if their sons and daughters were sent into battle against nations equipped with such weapons - in fact, they would be cooperating to develop this very technology if it meant protecting their loved ones. It's easy to be an idealist, until you've truly got something to lose. I think a lot of people need to be reminded of this.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
So, I had to reread your middle para because I honestly thought you were heading an entirely different direction. Do you think it should be legal for citizens to carry RPGs, machine guns, grenades, ..., so they never have to go in to a room in which someone else might have more firepower?
- michaelt 8y ago
  Pretty sure iliketosleep means "if their sons and daughters were in the military during a war, and were sent into battle" - after all, it'd be unusual to be sent into battle in any other circumstances. And yes, I think most people agree it should be legal for soldiers to carry machine guns and grenades when in warzones during wars.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    You misunderstood me. I was asking the question I wished the parent to answer. The point the GP made was seemingly that we shouldn't let potential enemies have better weapons (autonomous drones), denying them for ourselves. Yes, I assumed they were considering the context of state sanctioned aggression. I wondered if they only found that reasoning appropriate for states, or in general. One could ask "should we always seek for the most terrible weapons to be legal in any context in order to ensure no enemy can outmatch us due to restraints of law?".
    - Konnstann 8y ago
      I think that reasoning is valid for state-sanctioned aggression, or war to be precise. Personally I think that as long as collateral damage is minimal, we should strive to develop the most deadly, most efficient weapons we can, specifically for the purposes of deterring unchecked aggression. I don't think GP was making an argument that I should carry an AK-47 on me so that any muggers i come across are less likely to out-arm me.
      - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
        Thanks. Per your 2nd para, why not, what's different in you legally allowing the availability of the most deadly means in the two contexts?
        Konnstann 8y ago
        Nation-states cannot, in my mind, be compared to individuals when it comes to propensity for aggression. The vast majority of individuals, in, say the U.S. are not armed, whereas the majority of nation-states have a military. Furthermore, the countries that are in proximity to "aggressive" states either have a strong military e.g. Israel, or have military presence from other countries with strong militaries e.g. South Korea. Also, the distances between different countries vs the spread of information is also vastly different. It is harder to commit an international act of violence with no witnesses than it is an interpersonal one, and the threat of retaliation keeps violence at bay, for the most part at least.