6 ms·

This is a pitiful sum. We're talking over 15 years for the strongest alliance in the world. Just $1B? What is this a school for ants? We're talking 1/12th of a

This is a pitiful sum. We're talking over 15 years for the strongest alliance in the world. Just $1B? What is this a school for ants? We're talking 1/12th of an aircraft carrier. For all of Nato? How much was put into the Manhattan project by just three (!!!) countries, one of them Canada. What, like 30x this in inflation adjusted dollars? That doesn't even count the rest of the spending on nuclear weapons over the years.

danbruc 5y ago
What if we reduced the amount of money we spent on military purposes instead of increasing it?
- aerostable_slug 5y ago
  If we did so, what if China picked up the slack? I'm not sure that would be a net win for humanity.
  - danbruc 5y ago
    China will become the most powerful nation eventually if they do not accidentally prevent themselves from doing so. An attempt to stay ahead of China is likely a losing battle so get over this rivalry and focus on cooperation.
    - gherkinnn 5y ago
      Now that’s a defeatist attitude if ever I saw one. And a silly one too. There is no cooperation. Only servitude.
      - rscho 5y ago
        Which of course, is completely different from what you get with the US in the lead...
        SkyMarshal 5y ago
        At least with the US in the lead you can freely criticize the US on the Internet, or even in person, without being censored, disappeared, jailed, and/or "re-educated". Try criticizing the CCP on a Chinese message board, or in person, and see what happens. Is that really the world you want to live in?
        rscho 5y ago
        The infractions necessary for being "disappeared" or re-educated are different in the US, yes. Yet I could very easily say things on this very site that would lead me straight to prison in my own country, and I owe it directly to US cultural influence because my country does not have those issues for which I'd go to prison. Is that really better? TBH I'm not sure. What's sure is that red is dead, but imperialism is alive and kicking.
        gherkinnn 5y ago
        The US leaves a documented trail of blood. And yet, the US never went to any length of stopping the head of state being compared to Winnie the Poo. In fact, the mere fact that the US fuckery is so well documented is quite telling. Remember “tank man” not returning any results on Bing just a few weeks back?
      - danbruc 5y ago
        Defeatist. As if there is a game to be won. Do you really believe that humanity will stay divided into states with vastly different lifestyles forever? And even if you believe this, do you have any reason to believe that the most powerful country would be any other than the largest [1] one? [1] Largest here does not imply area, I am more thinking of a combination of factors including area and natural resources which are not affected by technological progress.
      - caycep 5y ago
        I think the better way to view it amongst policymakers on both sides are: do you make your policy decisions to create an antagonistic relationship like US vs. USSR? Or a cooperative one like US-UK or US-Japan? For whatever reasons (and tbh a lot of it is perhaps a massive CCP inferiority complex and short sightedness, vs. US short sightedness), current policymakers have chosen to undergo an antagonistic side. But one can argue the US-China relationship initiated between Nixon/Deng was one of the most mutually beneficial relationships, economically speaking, over the past 3-4 decades, far outpacing US-UK...until the Xi-faction and the Trumpers killed it off...
    - edgyquant 5y ago
      This is just not true. China has a range of problems ahead of it that freer (and less populous) nations do not.
      - danbruc 5y ago
        What would China stop from becoming freer if this becomes the limiting factor? Assuming country X has figured out the best way to run a country for whatever you mean with best, at least in principle nothing stops China from doing the same thing. And it is still simply larger. Unsurmountable scaling issues? Does not sound likely to me. Large cultural change required? Maybe hard to do over years or a few decades but again I see not why you would not eventually go through a beneficial cultural change over generations. But this is also why I added the qualification of China not standing in its own way, they have certainly the power to cause their own downfall, cause a [civil] war for example. But even then, unless the country gets fractured into many small countries, what would prevent them raising from the ruins stronger?
        T-A 5y ago
        https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/china-s-dilemma-growing-old-before-it-becomes-rich-and-powerful-20210408-p57hmx.html https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/china-s-dilemma-...
        contingencies 5y ago
        In addition to the aging population problem mentioned in the article, a huge economic bubble based on domestic real estate investment funded by poorly secured loans has burst, the effects of which are only beginning to be felt. All across the country skyscrapers stand half built, monuments to better days. Simultaneously, Western supply chains are either actively or passively (due to shipping issues associated with COVID) seeking diversification, and Chinese labour is now considered too expensive for a large swathe of manufacturing. Traditional industries such as textiles, shoes and so forth are all moving out to Vietnam/Bangladesh/Myanmar/etc. The accelerating affects of automation further compound this scenario. Further, the local education system and HR market are undeveloped for higher level skills, and core aspects of the domestic business environment create substantial inefficiency (financial regulation and practice, commercial law enforcement, etc.). That said, I still find China to have many benefits as a business environment, and I will never work for military of any country on principle.
    - sremani 5y ago
      China ascend to Power is hardly fiat accompli, and on top of it their food insecurity and disputes with 17 neighbors is only going to compel them to focus inward. Yes, all those Africa and BRI adventures are already turning bitter for host nations. US and USSR won the WW2 - you get power by winning wars and winning decisively. If China wrests Taiwan, we can then seriously talk about their contention until then its just talk.
      - pphysch 5y ago
        China went from a colonial backwater to the #1 real economy in the world, without endless foreign wars. Recent history irrefutably disproves your "might is right" framework.
        petre 5y ago
        It had a bit of help with US being its #1 market and aiding technology transfer by moving all production offshore.
        Apocryphon 5y ago
        China was only a colonial backwater during the time centered around the "century of humiliation." It was an unchallenged sprawling empire for millennia. This is just reversion to the mean.
        pphysch 5y ago
        It is fundamentally an issue of separatism, and associated violent extremism/terrorism. The idea that it is some kind of "race war" is a pure fantasy of race realist Westerners.
        sremani 5y ago
        There is a reason why USD is the world reserve currency. How much trade is done using your '#1 real economy currency'. Export-Oriented economies have a lot of problems and that will be evident as the Global growth is coming to stagnation this decade. Power is power - that is why every country maintains a military, even the small ones. The recent history is 'stabler' than past because of Bretonwoods and various maritime security guarantees. That did not happen in vacuum and China is not the architect of the system.
    - onepointsixC 5y ago
      China's idea of cooperation is the Chinese-Pakistani relationship in which the PM of Pakistan won't even speak up about human rights of Uighurs. As per Document No. 9, the existence of free liberal societies is an existential threat to the CCP and they will act to export their totalitarianism to extinguish them. The only way you give up rivalry with a revisionist expansionist ethnostate is by surrendering. No thanks.
      - pphysch 5y ago
        Imran Khan won't "speak up" about Xinjiang's separatism issues just like he won't "speak up" about the "Great Replacement" or other ideological nonsense that has literally nothing to do with the sovereign nation of Pakistan.
        onepointsixC 5y ago
        Except he speaks up about Islamophobia in the west all the time. His inability to speak to the genocide right across his border is not ideological nonsense, and calling it merely an issue of separatism is white washing.
        pphysch 5y ago
        International Islamophobia is quite relevant to a large Islamic nation. Foreign separatism crises are not.
      - danbruc 5y ago
        As per Document No. 9, the existence of free liberal societies is an existential threat to the CCP and they will act to export their totalitarianism to extinguish them. I was not aware of this document and just read the Wikipedia article and skimmed a translation. Yes, it describes the promotion of a number of western values as threats but I can not find where it says anything about extinguishing them, only how to limit their influence in the country itself, for example by blocking certain content in China.
the_optimist 5y ago
Arguably this is simply the wrong strategy for investment. Look at the US “Endless Frontiers Act” for an analog, 95% of funding for cronies and pork. Fear and tech-hype driven. This is not the “deterministic optimism” that achieves goals.
- er4hn 5y ago
  All meats are represented, not just pork! https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1260/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/126... See Section 2518 for the elimination of Shark Fin soup. I agree with eliminating shark fin soup, it is a cruel and destructive harvesting practice. But it absolutely should not have been a part of a bill on funding tech innovation. Argh.
L_226 5y ago
This is just for an accelerator program, do you seriously think that a startup that develops something meaningful from this seed captial will not get the full force of NATO's budget shoved into it?
- 3pt14159 5y ago
  But this is partially my point. We didn't nickel and dime all the crazy geniuses that put together the manhattan project in 200 different startups over 15 years. War AI isn't something you can bootstrap. You need serious resources and talent, and most of the people that are great are getting offered half a million a year unless they work for a startup with equity. This is not enough money and this timeline is ridiculously long.
  - richardw 5y ago
    DARPA Grand Challenge kickstarted a lot of careers and companies and it was a pitiful amount of money as well. In WWII there was no time for serendipity and black swans. Only guarantees, before the other side got it, within a few years.
kej 5y ago
This isn't the total sum being spent by all of those countries, just the money they're spending on it together via NATO. There's still DARPA and similar agencies in other member countries who would be funding similar research.
lbriner 5y ago
If I was already well-paid, I probably wouldn't leave a job just because of the investment money but if I already wanted to start my own business and could do with the extra dollars for R&D, it would definitely be worth looking at. Assuming of course, you don't have any qualms about your tech being used to kill people at a later date :-/
LatteLazy 5y ago
Now you know why nato has loads of aircraft carriers but can't quite seem to keep Russia off of their intranet.
richardw 5y ago
Says modelled on this, which attracts another $15 for each $ invested. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel Look, last year it didn’t exist. They haven’t capped all investment in the industry. If it does well it could attract a lot more.
- 3pt14159 5y ago
  Yeah I know all about In-Q-Tel and DARPA. I have a friend who was funded by In-Q-Tel a decade ago or so. The thing that I'm trying to express, the thing that policy makers can't quite get their heads around, is that war AI is different. It's not a little startup-y thing you can cobble together until it sorta, kinda works for a specific use-case. We already have that. Missiles, aircraft, nuclear weapons simulations all have specialized AI. But that isn't the future. The future is something like Alpha Zero being applied to a whole domain or a whole battlefield. Something that coordinates and controls all the ships, planes, missiles, drones, and sensors in an arena for as total domination as can be achieved. We've had AI that augments human ability for decades. And it is effective, no question. But that isn't what is going to define the next generation of warfare.

danbruc 5y ago

What if we reduced the amount of money we spent on military purposes instead of increasing it?

aerostable_slug 5y ago
If we did so, what if China picked up the slack? I'm not sure that would be a net win for humanity.
- danbruc 5y ago
  China will become the most powerful nation eventually if they do not accidentally prevent themselves from doing so. An attempt to stay ahead of China is likely a losing battle so get over this rivalry and focus on cooperation.
  - gherkinnn 5y ago
    Now that’s a defeatist attitude if ever I saw one. And a silly one too. There is no cooperation. Only servitude.
    - rscho 5y ago
      Which of course, is completely different from what you get with the US in the lead...
      - SkyMarshal 5y ago
        At least with the US in the lead you can freely criticize the US on the Internet, or even in person, without being censored, disappeared, jailed, and/or "re-educated". Try criticizing the CCP on a Chinese message board, or in person, and see what happens. Is that really the world you want to live in?
        rscho 5y ago
        The infractions necessary for being "disappeared" or re-educated are different in the US, yes. Yet I could very easily say things on this very site that would lead me straight to prison in my own country, and I owe it directly to US cultural influence because my country does not have those issues for which I'd go to prison. Is that really better? TBH I'm not sure. What's sure is that red is dead, but imperialism is alive and kicking.
      - gherkinnn 5y ago
        The US leaves a documented trail of blood. And yet, the US never went to any length of stopping the head of state being compared to Winnie the Poo. In fact, the mere fact that the US fuckery is so well documented is quite telling. Remember “tank man” not returning any results on Bing just a few weeks back?
    - danbruc 5y ago
      Defeatist. As if there is a game to be won. Do you really believe that humanity will stay divided into states with vastly different lifestyles forever? And even if you believe this, do you have any reason to believe that the most powerful country would be any other than the largest [1] one? [1] Largest here does not imply area, I am more thinking of a combination of factors including area and natural resources which are not affected by technological progress.
    - caycep 5y ago
      I think the better way to view it amongst policymakers on both sides are: do you make your policy decisions to create an antagonistic relationship like US vs. USSR? Or a cooperative one like US-UK or US-Japan? For whatever reasons (and tbh a lot of it is perhaps a massive CCP inferiority complex and short sightedness, vs. US short sightedness), current policymakers have chosen to undergo an antagonistic side. But one can argue the US-China relationship initiated between Nixon/Deng was one of the most mutually beneficial relationships, economically speaking, over the past 3-4 decades, far outpacing US-UK...until the Xi-faction and the Trumpers killed it off...
  - edgyquant 5y ago
    This is just not true. China has a range of problems ahead of it that freer (and less populous) nations do not.
    - danbruc 5y ago
      What would China stop from becoming freer if this becomes the limiting factor? Assuming country X has figured out the best way to run a country for whatever you mean with best, at least in principle nothing stops China from doing the same thing. And it is still simply larger. Unsurmountable scaling issues? Does not sound likely to me. Large cultural change required? Maybe hard to do over years or a few decades but again I see not why you would not eventually go through a beneficial cultural change over generations. But this is also why I added the qualification of China not standing in its own way, they have certainly the power to cause their own downfall, cause a [civil] war for example. But even then, unless the country gets fractured into many small countries, what would prevent them raising from the ruins stronger?
      - T-A 5y ago
        https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/china-s-dilemma-growing-old-before-it-becomes-rich-and-powerful-20210408-p57hmx.html https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/china-s-dilemma-...
        contingencies 5y ago
        In addition to the aging population problem mentioned in the article, a huge economic bubble based on domestic real estate investment funded by poorly secured loans has burst, the effects of which are only beginning to be felt. All across the country skyscrapers stand half built, monuments to better days. Simultaneously, Western supply chains are either actively or passively (due to shipping issues associated with COVID) seeking diversification, and Chinese labour is now considered too expensive for a large swathe of manufacturing. Traditional industries such as textiles, shoes and so forth are all moving out to Vietnam/Bangladesh/Myanmar/etc. The accelerating affects of automation further compound this scenario. Further, the local education system and HR market are undeveloped for higher level skills, and core aspects of the domestic business environment create substantial inefficiency (financial regulation and practice, commercial law enforcement, etc.). That said, I still find China to have many benefits as a business environment, and I will never work for military of any country on principle.
  - sremani 5y ago
    China ascend to Power is hardly fiat accompli, and on top of it their food insecurity and disputes with 17 neighbors is only going to compel them to focus inward. Yes, all those Africa and BRI adventures are already turning bitter for host nations. US and USSR won the WW2 - you get power by winning wars and winning decisively. If China wrests Taiwan, we can then seriously talk about their contention until then its just talk.
    - pphysch 5y ago
      China went from a colonial backwater to the #1 real economy in the world, without endless foreign wars. Recent history irrefutably disproves your "might is right" framework.
      - petre 5y ago
        It had a bit of help with US being its #1 market and aiding technology transfer by moving all production offshore.
      - Apocryphon 5y ago
        China was only a colonial backwater during the time centered around the "century of humiliation." It was an unchallenged sprawling empire for millennia. This is just reversion to the mean.
        pphysch 5y ago
        It is fundamentally an issue of separatism, and associated violent extremism/terrorism. The idea that it is some kind of "race war" is a pure fantasy of race realist Westerners.
      - sremani 5y ago
        There is a reason why USD is the world reserve currency. How much trade is done using your '#1 real economy currency'. Export-Oriented economies have a lot of problems and that will be evident as the Global growth is coming to stagnation this decade. Power is power - that is why every country maintains a military, even the small ones. The recent history is 'stabler' than past because of Bretonwoods and various maritime security guarantees. That did not happen in vacuum and China is not the architect of the system.
  - onepointsixC 5y ago
    China's idea of cooperation is the Chinese-Pakistani relationship in which the PM of Pakistan won't even speak up about human rights of Uighurs. As per Document No. 9, the existence of free liberal societies is an existential threat to the CCP and they will act to export their totalitarianism to extinguish them. The only way you give up rivalry with a revisionist expansionist ethnostate is by surrendering. No thanks.
    - pphysch 5y ago
      Imran Khan won't "speak up" about Xinjiang's separatism issues just like he won't "speak up" about the "Great Replacement" or other ideological nonsense that has literally nothing to do with the sovereign nation of Pakistan.
      - onepointsixC 5y ago
        Except he speaks up about Islamophobia in the west all the time. His inability to speak to the genocide right across his border is not ideological nonsense, and calling it merely an issue of separatism is white washing.
        pphysch 5y ago
        International Islamophobia is quite relevant to a large Islamic nation. Foreign separatism crises are not.
    - danbruc 5y ago
      As per Document No. 9, the existence of free liberal societies is an existential threat to the CCP and they will act to export their totalitarianism to extinguish them. I was not aware of this document and just read the Wikipedia article and skimmed a translation. Yes, it describes the promotion of a number of western values as threats but I can not find where it says anything about extinguishing them, only how to limit their influence in the country itself, for example by blocking certain content in China.

the_optimist 5y ago

Arguably this is simply the wrong strategy for investment. Look at the US “Endless Frontiers Act” for an analog, 95% of funding for cronies and pork. Fear and tech-hype driven. This is not the “deterministic optimism” that achieves goals.

er4hn 5y ago
All meats are represented, not just pork! https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1260/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/126... See Section 2518 for the elimination of Shark Fin soup. I agree with eliminating shark fin soup, it is a cruel and destructive harvesting practice. But it absolutely should not have been a part of a bill on funding tech innovation. Argh.

L_226 5y ago

This is just for an accelerator program, do you seriously think that a startup that develops something meaningful from this seed captial will not get the full force of NATO's budget shoved into it?

3pt14159 5y ago
But this is partially my point. We didn't nickel and dime all the crazy geniuses that put together the manhattan project in 200 different startups over 15 years. War AI isn't something you can bootstrap. You need serious resources and talent, and most of the people that are great are getting offered half a million a year unless they work for a startup with equity. This is not enough money and this timeline is ridiculously long.
- richardw 5y ago
  DARPA Grand Challenge kickstarted a lot of careers and companies and it was a pitiful amount of money as well. In WWII there was no time for serendipity and black swans. Only guarantees, before the other side got it, within a few years.

kej 5y ago

This isn't the total sum being spent by all of those countries, just the money they're spending on it together via NATO. There's still DARPA and similar agencies in other member countries who would be funding similar research.

lbriner 5y ago

If I was already well-paid, I probably wouldn't leave a job just because of the investment money but if I already wanted to start my own business and could do with the extra dollars for R&D, it would definitely be worth looking at. Assuming of course, you don't have any qualms about your tech being used to kill people at a later date :-/

LatteLazy 5y ago

Now you know why nato has loads of aircraft carriers but can't quite seem to keep Russia off of their intranet.

richardw 5y ago

Says modelled on this, which attracts another $15 for each $ invested. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel Look, last year it didn’t exist. They haven’t capped all investment in the industry. If it does well it could attract a lot more.

3pt14159 5y ago
Yeah I know all about In-Q-Tel and DARPA. I have a friend who was funded by In-Q-Tel a decade ago or so. The thing that I'm trying to express, the thing that policy makers can't quite get their heads around, is that war AI is different. It's not a little startup-y thing you can cobble together until it sorta, kinda works for a specific use-case. We already have that. Missiles, aircraft, nuclear weapons simulations all have specialized AI. But that isn't the future. The future is something like Alpha Zero being applied to a whole domain or a whole battlefield. Something that coordinates and controls all the ships, planes, missiles, drones, and sensors in an arena for as total domination as can be achieved. We've had AI that augments human ability for decades. And it is effective, no question. But that isn't what is going to define the next generation of warfare.