4 ms·

Firstly, agreements do not keep biological weapons off the table or nuclear programs in check. The first is done largely by the great powers agreeing that it's

Firstly, agreements do not keep biological weapons off the table or nuclear programs in check. The first is done largely by the great powers agreeing that it's a bad idea from a military standpoint. That is, biological weapons are not stockpiled not because of all the obvious horrible consequences, but because the common wisdom is that they are ineffective weapons. Keeping nuclear programs in check is mostly done through expense. Everyone who has them has made enough of them to feel safe, and doesn't want to make more because they are really expensive. After states have decided they don't want any more nukes, they sign agreements with each other to make sure no-one else is building a massive stockpile. If any of them wanted a larger stockpile, they would make it. In general, powerful states can not be limited by agreements. They only ever work as a framework that allows everyone to do what they would have wanted to do anyway, while feeling confident of what everyone else wants to do and how to plan for it. The American obsession of thinking of the UN as world government and international agreements as laws really distorts your view on the world. That is simply not how any of this works. But regardless of all that, even if broad international agreements would actually work to limit weaponry, it still wouldn't work, because AI is deniable. The initial AI isn't going to replace the pilot, they are going to augment them. And those are developed further until the pilots are no longer needed, and past that. So you can develop all the way to the point where humans have become a detriment, without needing to show your hand. And only deploy completely unmanned platforms once the proverbial shit hits the fan, which is after the point where everyone has stopped caring about international agreements anyway.

baddox 6y ago
> The first is done largely by the great powers agreeing that it's a bad idea from a military standpoint. That is, biological weapons are not stockpiled not because of all the obvious horrible consequences, but because the common wisdom is that they are ineffective weapons. Can you point to any evidence that this is the case? It doesn't sound plausible to me.
- magicsmoke 6y ago
  https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/ https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch... This is about chemical weapons but a lot of it applies to biological as well. Biological weapons also have the added benefit of possibly becoming a global pandemic and infecting your own military and economic base.
PhantomGremlin 6y ago
The American obsession of thinking of the UN as world government I don't know if it's because of Trump, but as far as I can tell Americans don't think of the UN at all anymore. At all. There have been so many recent events where the UN could have been involved, but wasn't. E.g. when the USA recently smoked General Soleimani with Hellfire missles, where was the UN? I watch local and network evening news on a regular basis, but didn't hear anything about this being discussed in the UN. Perhaps it was debated, but it went unnoticed by about 99% of the US population.
- Tuna-Fish 6y ago
  > when the USA recently smoked General Soleimani with Hellfire missles, where was the UN? This is a good example of the weird attitude where Americans think of the UN as a world government. UN is a place where diplomats of different countries keep constantly in touch and maintain relations. That's all it is. UN does not have opinions. The member countries have, UN is only a place where they are presented. UN does not do things. The member countries do things, UN is the place where this is organized.

baddox 6y ago

> The first is done largely by the great powers agreeing that it's a bad idea from a military standpoint. That is, biological weapons are not stockpiled not because of all the obvious horrible consequences, but because the common wisdom is that they are ineffective weapons. Can you point to any evidence that this is the case? It doesn't sound plausible to me.

magicsmoke 6y ago
https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/ https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch... This is about chemical weapons but a lot of it applies to biological as well. Biological weapons also have the added benefit of possibly becoming a global pandemic and infecting your own military and economic base.

PhantomGremlin 6y ago

The American obsession of thinking of the UN as world government I don't know if it's because of Trump, but as far as I can tell Americans don't think of the UN at all anymore. At all. There have been so many recent events where the UN could have been involved, but wasn't. E.g. when the USA recently smoked General Soleimani with Hellfire missles, where was the UN? I watch local and network evening news on a regular basis, but didn't hear anything about this being discussed in the UN. Perhaps it was debated, but it went unnoticed by about 99% of the US population.

Tuna-Fish 6y ago
> when the USA recently smoked General Soleimani with Hellfire missles, where was the UN? This is a good example of the weird attitude where Americans think of the UN as a world government. UN is a place where diplomats of different countries keep constantly in touch and maintain relations. That's all it is. UN does not have opinions. The member countries have, UN is only a place where they are presented. UN does not do things. The member countries do things, UN is the place where this is organized.