4 ms·

It's interesting that some on this thread have raised the problem that protesting military technology hampers you compared to your potential adversaries. This i

by cletus 8y ago

It's interesting that some on this thread have raised the problem that protesting military technology hampers you compared to your potential adversaries. This is a topic covered in-depth in Dan Carlin's Hardcore History episode "Destroyer of Worlds" [1], which talked about the development of nuclear weapons after WWII. One point of contention was the morality of developing the hydrogen bomb and people will ask the question "what if our enemies have it and we don't?" On the other hand, anyone having a particular capability greatly increases the chances that everyone will have it. The US thought the Soviets would take 20 years to develop the atomic bomb. It took 4 years thanks in no small part to espionage efforts by the USSR. Part of the reason why this worked is people who didn't want a world where only the US had nuclear weapons. It would be too dangerous. So for any military tech that US companies develop consider how likely that is to stay in their hands and not be stolen by China. On a personal level I support employees holding their employers accountable. If you think you're absolved of moral responsibility for what the company does let me ask you this: why then aren't the lawyers who work for patent trolls or the price gouging executives at Big Pharma or those who worked for Big Tobacco? [1] https://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-59-the-destroyer-of-worlds/ https://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-59-the-destroyer-...

lamarpye 8y ago
>It took 4 years thanks in no small part to espionage efforts by the USSR. Part of the reason why this worked is people who didn't want a world where only the US had nuclear weapons. It would be too dangerous. I believe the technical term for these kinds of people is "useful idiots". How exactly was the world made a safer place by Joseph Stalin having a nuclear bomb? Try this thought experiment, at the end of WWII the Soviets have the bomb and the United States does not. Does Russia wait 20 years for the US to develop the bomb? Or do they attack as soon as the are able? Which part of Stalin's morality guides his decision?
- dingaling 8y ago
  > How exactly was the world made a safer place by Joseph Stalin having a nuclear bomb? Consider that General McArthur was advocating nuclear strikes into China in order to change the course of the Korean War. Would that have been vetoed at Presidential level if only the USA had nukes? And what would the USSR have done in 1962 in response to US nuclear Jupiter missiles being deployed in Turkey and Italy? Instead of countering with missiles on Cuba they'd probably have been provoked to attack.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    If the US only had nukes in the Korean War, they might not have needed to use them. China would probably have backed off at a stern warning. Something like "That big troop concentration heading for the border? In 12 hours, they better be further away, or they all die." And in 1962, if the US has nukes and Russia doesn't, that's going to provoke Russia to launch an attack? "These people have weapons way bigger than we do, so let's attack them?" No. That's insane. Khrushchev wasn't insane.

by cletus 8y ago

lamarpye 8y ago

>It took 4 years thanks in no small part to espionage efforts by the USSR. Part of the reason why this worked is people who didn't want a world where only the US had nuclear weapons. It would be too dangerous. I believe the technical term for these kinds of people is "useful idiots". How exactly was the world made a safer place by Joseph Stalin having a nuclear bomb? Try this thought experiment, at the end of WWII the Soviets have the bomb and the United States does not. Does Russia wait 20 years for the US to develop the bomb? Or do they attack as soon as the are able? Which part of Stalin's morality guides his decision?

dingaling 8y ago
> How exactly was the world made a safer place by Joseph Stalin having a nuclear bomb? Consider that General McArthur was advocating nuclear strikes into China in order to change the course of the Korean War. Would that have been vetoed at Presidential level if only the USA had nukes? And what would the USSR have done in 1962 in response to US nuclear Jupiter missiles being deployed in Turkey and Italy? Instead of countering with missiles on Cuba they'd probably have been provoked to attack.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  If the US only had nukes in the Korean War, they might not have needed to use them. China would probably have backed off at a stern warning. Something like "That big troop concentration heading for the border? In 12 hours, they better be further away, or they all die." And in 1962, if the US has nukes and Russia doesn't, that's going to provoke Russia to launch an attack? "These people have weapons way bigger than we do, so let's attack them?" No. That's insane. Khrushchev wasn't insane.