5 ms·

I think researching this stuff today is pretty immoral. If you're creating shit like this, you're inventing the next land mine. Stop it.

seneca 6y ago
While I understand the sentiment, the problem is that abstaining from weapons research due to moral qualms leads to the least moral being the most well armed.
- lupire 6y ago
  Invest in defensive research. "War is symmetric" is a fallacy. You often can't shoot back at who is shooting at you, but you can shoot at others.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
inglor_cz 6y ago
There is a remorseless logic in a race to the bottom, though. Anyone who eschews development of such military system risks becoming a toy of those who went all in. The Armenians just lost a lot of territory in Nagorno Karabakh they considered their own - to an enemy who had suicide drones. Their country wasn't exactly big even before that loss. Fifty other nations in potentially similar position looked at that war and its outcome. I doubt that their decisions were "let us stay moral and possibly be next on the chopping block".
- LegitShady 6y ago
  >The Armenians just lost a lot of territory in Nagorno Karabakh they considered their own - to an enemy who had suicide drones. IMHO while it's true their enemy had 'suicide drones' (which are actually loitering munitions, but 'suicide' makes it sound so much more evil) that wasn't a deciding factor - they also had Turkish drones that didn't require self detonation to work. Azerbaijan put a lot of videos on youtube showing them bombing and pursuing groups of Armenian soldiers with those drones, not the suicide drones. The suicide drones were anti material weapons against mobile air defense and other harder targets. The azeris even used old (trash) AN-2's turned into drones to get a response from Armenian air defense systems so that loitering munitions like the herop could identity air defense systems with minimal danger. We are already in this race. Everyone is, even if they won't acknowledge it. Without anti air/anti drone technology no ground force is safe. This isn't new or unique to drones - it's the truth of every war where air dominance occurs. In the Six Day War Israel destroyed most of Egypt's air force on the ground in its opening strike, and when Egypt tried to retreat from the Sinai they used their air force to bomb the retreating units with impunity. The remnants of Egypt's air force couldn't fight against an intact air force so they flew support sorties but were overall ineffective. No drones required. It's just gotten cheaper to do.
- mLuby 6y ago
  Like with the prisoners' dilemma, what's "logical" in a one-time two-player game isn't true for a multi-round multi-player game. If the Meanie Republic uses Agony Clouds against the citizens of Goodistan, the rest of the world notices. Maybe the Meanie Republic completely wins and even annexes Goodistan, but the bystander countries are going to take Meanie atrocities into account when deciding how to interact with that state. Relatedly, a year ago "Why don't we use chemical weapons anymore" was trending on HN (it's a good read): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22661465 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22661465
  - inglor_cz 6y ago
    True, but the trouble is, use of killer robots or suicide drones does not lead to spectacular atrocities. Much like targeted advertising, it works in a pinpoint fashion. So the moral outrage is likely to be absent, at least compared to things like flattening of Rotterdam by Luftwaffe or Rape of Nanking.
    - _carbyau_ 6y ago
      "Targeted advertising" may not be the best metaphor here...
samatman 6y ago
Land mines exist for a reason, as weapons, they have advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that you can set them up and get automatic area denial: if your enemy (or your friends, or civilians, or large dogs, or cattle) enter the minefield, they're going to die or at least be mutilated. Obviously, some of that is disadvantage. The biggest disadvantage is that they're cheap, and buried in the ground, so it's tempting to leave them there, especially if you happen to lose the conflict. So they continue to kill people long after there are no enemies left. Automated gunbots have the same advantage as landmines. They share a shade of the minor disadvantage, namely they can't reliably tell enemies from friendlies or civilians. But neither can a grunt in a machine gun emplacement. They are expensive, and above the ground, so there's no world in which civilian children, years after the conflict, are shot to death while playing in a field. So if these are the "next landmine" I say: good. We would all love to live in the world in which there is no war, but, we don't. Until we do, we will need the weapons of war.
- lambda_obrien 6y ago
  That's the exist everyone gives: "everybody else is doing it" It's still immoral.
  - samatman 6y ago
    Well that's just like, your opinion, man. In a vacuum, with perfectly spherical frictionless humans, sure. In the world we live in, a technology which replaces landmines, and kills fewer noncombatants, is an improvement which results in less civilian death. That's moral in my playbook.
    - lambda_obrien 6y ago
      Moral would be not killing other humans for power, resources, etc. I'm comfortable with my beliefs, and I understand your position as well. I personally understand the need for a military, but there are some weapons I wouldn't have been comfortable using when I was a military officer. Luckily, I have no part in those decisions today and I can share my beliefs without any risk to anyone else, "enemy" or otherwise.

seneca 6y ago

While I understand the sentiment, the problem is that abstaining from weapons research due to moral qualms leads to the least moral being the most well armed.

lupire 6y ago
Invest in defensive research. "War is symmetric" is a fallacy. You often can't shoot back at who is shooting at you, but you can shoot at others.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

inglor_cz 6y ago

There is a remorseless logic in a race to the bottom, though. Anyone who eschews development of such military system risks becoming a toy of those who went all in. The Armenians just lost a lot of territory in Nagorno Karabakh they considered their own - to an enemy who had suicide drones. Their country wasn't exactly big even before that loss. Fifty other nations in potentially similar position looked at that war and its outcome. I doubt that their decisions were "let us stay moral and possibly be next on the chopping block".

LegitShady 6y ago
>The Armenians just lost a lot of territory in Nagorno Karabakh they considered their own - to an enemy who had suicide drones. IMHO while it's true their enemy had 'suicide drones' (which are actually loitering munitions, but 'suicide' makes it sound so much more evil) that wasn't a deciding factor - they also had Turkish drones that didn't require self detonation to work. Azerbaijan put a lot of videos on youtube showing them bombing and pursuing groups of Armenian soldiers with those drones, not the suicide drones. The suicide drones were anti material weapons against mobile air defense and other harder targets. The azeris even used old (trash) AN-2's turned into drones to get a response from Armenian air defense systems so that loitering munitions like the herop could identity air defense systems with minimal danger. We are already in this race. Everyone is, even if they won't acknowledge it. Without anti air/anti drone technology no ground force is safe. This isn't new or unique to drones - it's the truth of every war where air dominance occurs. In the Six Day War Israel destroyed most of Egypt's air force on the ground in its opening strike, and when Egypt tried to retreat from the Sinai they used their air force to bomb the retreating units with impunity. The remnants of Egypt's air force couldn't fight against an intact air force so they flew support sorties but were overall ineffective. No drones required. It's just gotten cheaper to do.
mLuby 6y ago
Like with the prisoners' dilemma, what's "logical" in a one-time two-player game isn't true for a multi-round multi-player game. If the Meanie Republic uses Agony Clouds against the citizens of Goodistan, the rest of the world notices. Maybe the Meanie Republic completely wins and even annexes Goodistan, but the bystander countries are going to take Meanie atrocities into account when deciding how to interact with that state. Relatedly, a year ago "Why don't we use chemical weapons anymore" was trending on HN (it's a good read): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22661465 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22661465
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  True, but the trouble is, use of killer robots or suicide drones does not lead to spectacular atrocities. Much like targeted advertising, it works in a pinpoint fashion. So the moral outrage is likely to be absent, at least compared to things like flattening of Rotterdam by Luftwaffe or Rape of Nanking.
  - _carbyau_ 6y ago
    "Targeted advertising" may not be the best metaphor here...

samatman 6y ago

Land mines exist for a reason, as weapons, they have advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that you can set them up and get automatic area denial: if your enemy (or your friends, or civilians, or large dogs, or cattle) enter the minefield, they're going to die or at least be mutilated. Obviously, some of that is disadvantage. The biggest disadvantage is that they're cheap, and buried in the ground, so it's tempting to leave them there, especially if you happen to lose the conflict. So they continue to kill people long after there are no enemies left. Automated gunbots have the same advantage as landmines. They share a shade of the minor disadvantage, namely they can't reliably tell enemies from friendlies or civilians. But neither can a grunt in a machine gun emplacement. They are expensive, and above the ground, so there's no world in which civilian children, years after the conflict, are shot to death while playing in a field. So if these are the "next landmine" I say: good. We would all love to live in the world in which there is no war, but, we don't. Until we do, we will need the weapons of war.

lambda_obrien 6y ago
That's the exist everyone gives: "everybody else is doing it" It's still immoral.
- samatman 6y ago
  Well that's just like, your opinion, man. In a vacuum, with perfectly spherical frictionless humans, sure. In the world we live in, a technology which replaces landmines, and kills fewer noncombatants, is an improvement which results in less civilian death. That's moral in my playbook.
  - lambda_obrien 6y ago
    Moral would be not killing other humans for power, resources, etc. I'm comfortable with my beliefs, and I understand your position as well. I personally understand the need for a military, but there are some weapons I wouldn't have been comfortable using when I was a military officer. Luckily, I have no part in those decisions today and I can share my beliefs without any risk to anyone else, "enemy" or otherwise.