5 ms·

>These systems that actually works, should be controlled. Why? to know your enemies and friends share this technology is to succor temperment in your foreign

>These systems that actually works, should be controlled. Why? to know your enemies and friends share this technology is to succor temperment in your foreign and domestic political and military policy. in other words: Parity encourages clarity. That the United States specifically sees "technological advantage" as a blank cheque to blow up things and people it does not like. to put it short, the reason we dont park aircraft carriers near china, or mine their ports as we did Nicaragua, is due to a technological parity that forces our statesmen to sobering and challenging political discussion. learning radar means empowering nations to guard their airspace and detect an adversary, an achievement the US will fight to keep many other nations from gaining as it would see their exodus from the duly designated "evil countries" list. Radar is an interdisciplinary adventure in electrical engineering and the material sciences as well as the further reaches of mathematics and physics. it is an enriching pursuit that enables independence and growth through learning and mastry. its uses are not strictly warlike, much to the scorn of ITAR.

nradov 4y ago
The US Navy routinely sends aircraft carriers and other warships near China. They are obviously not parked; a carrier has to sail into the wind to conduct flight operations.
ethbr0 4y ago
The world you believe exists, doesn't. > to know your enemies and friends share this technology is to succor temperment in your foreign and domestic political and military policy. Any modern superpower will jealously guard strategic military technologies. Ergo, any country openly sharing their own will be faced with an adversary who doesn't, who will then have an advantage. Furthermore, if you follow your line of reasoning to its end, we should dissolve the NNPT [0] and BWC [1], which would result in a much more dangerous world for everyone... Now where the line is on what technologies fall into and outside of this delineation is a fair argument. And, I'm tempted to say, should often be at the mercy "of what's available commercially internationally" (in this case, cat seems out of the bag). But saying that democratizing access to military-applicable technologies has a restraining effect on military adventurism doesn't seem like a cohesive argument. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Tr... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Conventio...
- musingsole 4y ago
  > Any modern superpower will jealously guard strategic military technologies. Parts of it will, probably. But societies aren't homogeneous, and modern ones in particular are interwoven in ways that produce behaviors at odds with protectionism. > But saying that democratizing access to military-applicable technologies has a restraining effect on military adventurism doesn't seem like a cohesive argument. Ukrainian combatants use of commercial drones and anti-tank shells might be a great example of how this argument is 100% cohesive. If a neighbor has the parts and ingenuity to craft weapons upon threat...maybe you try to play nice with them and their toys instead lest those toys turn deadly.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    > Ukrainian combatants use of commercial drones and anti-tank shells might be a great example of how this argument is 100% cohesive. That's a circular argument, as it's observing that a country fighting a defensive war will use available arms in a defensive manner.
    - jasmer 4y ago
      Russia is doing the same thing. Moreover, what they are doing is 'very crude' and the higher end drones, equipment, targeting, munitions are not available to them largely because that information is guarded.
      - CamperBob2 4y ago
        They aren't missing information. They are missing parts. That embargo is what's important. Russians are not actually morons. Neither are Iranians for that matter.
        ethbr0 4y ago
        There's a difference between being "morons" and lacking a self-sufficient industrial base. As to the latter, there's a reason Russia is buying drones and SRBMs from Iran...
carabiner 4y ago
Legalize nukes. Bro, just give me your phone password and I'll give you mine. We should all just share all of our information and be friends. Information wants to be free.
- BeFlatXIII 4y ago
  A well-armed society is a polite society.
  - carabiner 4y ago
    Like Somalia.
    - carabiner 4y ago
      Also, I know this is a cheap putdown but it illustrates the fundamental problem with "deregulate everything!" notion. Humans are horrible at tempering emotions and optimize for short-term gain. If humans could self-control with guns everywhere, then they could just as easily avoid obesity, alcoholism, environmental catastrophe, road rage, wars, and so on. We could just will ourselves to do the right thing every time. Except obesity only hurts ourselves, whereas guns can hurt many others.
      - Shocka1 4y ago
        Not to go too far off topic, but as an ex-military person and a weapons owner who always carries concealed, I agree mostly with you. I don't think I would have always agreed, but American society has become extremely sick. There are a multitude of issues going on and weapons probably aren't the only thing we should get rid of. I love a glass of wine or beer, but alcohol should probably go too. If we look at how many innocent people are killed every week by a drunk driver there is a case to be made. Good luck though - if you bring up banning alcohol to anyone in the US they will look at you like you are some kind of crazy person. I offer no good solutions as I realistically see none, but will continue to teach my kids to treat others with kindness, along with proper decision-making and understanding the consequences of one's actions.
ryandrake 4y ago
Further, how do you even define "enemy" when it comes to how modern products get built? An engineer who is a citizen of country A, but works in country B for a company whose headquarters is in country C, builds a product that gets used by a warrior of country D's army, stationed in country E. Which country-to-country enemy relationships count when determining whether the engineer is supporting "his enemy"?
- bagels 4y ago
  From personal experience, if you're building things that have itar restrictions, you just don't hire people that are in other countries.
  - toss1 4y ago
    Indeed, and beyond that, you are restricted from even DISCUSSING of SENDING any info to any party that is not authorized under the Joint Certification Program (JCP), and there are databases to check whether a person or program is authorized It is sad to see all these upstream comments that are plainly ignorant and advocating either some ideal of free info exchange, or that it is not possible to contain the info because once it is in the commercial domain, everyone must have it. While it is almost certain that there will be some leaks in almost any containment system, it is a massive fallacy to assume that therefore all efforts to contain tech transfer are futile. I've literally watched as likely agents from adversary nations attempted in public forums to get even mid-level tech info in my field. It all seemed very collegial until the source of the requests was noticed to be Iran and they were shut down. Yes, this does often result in 'false positives' and restrict technology transfer to a harmless person. Maybe that guy really was just some student trying to learn (or, more likely, he was well funded and trying to get info for their drone program which is literally at this moment killing people in a democratic nation). Too bad — the possible benefit isn't even in the same orders of magnitude from the potential harm. The expansionist authoritarian nations (Russia, Iran, China, NK, etc.) are literally waging war against the democracies of the world. We need to treat it as such. Yes, there are sincere colleagues behind those borders. The best we can do is to help them escape their awful governments. Helping them, and their awful governments advance only increases the risk that those awful governments will also rule us.

nradov 4y ago

The US Navy routinely sends aircraft carriers and other warships near China. They are obviously not parked; a carrier has to sail into the wind to conduct flight operations.

ethbr0 4y ago

The world you believe exists, doesn't. > to know your enemies and friends share this technology is to succor temperment in your foreign and domestic political and military policy. Any modern superpower will jealously guard strategic military technologies. Ergo, any country openly sharing their own will be faced with an adversary who doesn't, who will then have an advantage. Furthermore, if you follow your line of reasoning to its end, we should dissolve the NNPT [0] and BWC [1], which would result in a much more dangerous world for everyone... Now where the line is on what technologies fall into and outside of this delineation is a fair argument. And, I'm tempted to say, should often be at the mercy "of what's available commercially internationally" (in this case, cat seems out of the bag). But saying that democratizing access to military-applicable technologies has a restraining effect on military adventurism doesn't seem like a cohesive argument. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Tr... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Conventio...

musingsole 4y ago
> Any modern superpower will jealously guard strategic military technologies. Parts of it will, probably. But societies aren't homogeneous, and modern ones in particular are interwoven in ways that produce behaviors at odds with protectionism. > But saying that democratizing access to military-applicable technologies has a restraining effect on military adventurism doesn't seem like a cohesive argument. Ukrainian combatants use of commercial drones and anti-tank shells might be a great example of how this argument is 100% cohesive. If a neighbor has the parts and ingenuity to craft weapons upon threat...maybe you try to play nice with them and their toys instead lest those toys turn deadly.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  > Ukrainian combatants use of commercial drones and anti-tank shells might be a great example of how this argument is 100% cohesive. That's a circular argument, as it's observing that a country fighting a defensive war will use available arms in a defensive manner.
  - jasmer 4y ago
    Russia is doing the same thing. Moreover, what they are doing is 'very crude' and the higher end drones, equipment, targeting, munitions are not available to them largely because that information is guarded.
    - CamperBob2 4y ago
      They aren't missing information. They are missing parts. That embargo is what's important. Russians are not actually morons. Neither are Iranians for that matter.
      - ethbr0 4y ago
        There's a difference between being "morons" and lacking a self-sufficient industrial base. As to the latter, there's a reason Russia is buying drones and SRBMs from Iran...

carabiner 4y ago

Legalize nukes. Bro, just give me your phone password and I'll give you mine. We should all just share all of our information and be friends. Information wants to be free.

BeFlatXIII 4y ago
A well-armed society is a polite society.
- carabiner 4y ago
  Like Somalia.
  - carabiner 4y ago
    Also, I know this is a cheap putdown but it illustrates the fundamental problem with "deregulate everything!" notion. Humans are horrible at tempering emotions and optimize for short-term gain. If humans could self-control with guns everywhere, then they could just as easily avoid obesity, alcoholism, environmental catastrophe, road rage, wars, and so on. We could just will ourselves to do the right thing every time. Except obesity only hurts ourselves, whereas guns can hurt many others.
    - Shocka1 4y ago
      Not to go too far off topic, but as an ex-military person and a weapons owner who always carries concealed, I agree mostly with you. I don't think I would have always agreed, but American society has become extremely sick. There are a multitude of issues going on and weapons probably aren't the only thing we should get rid of. I love a glass of wine or beer, but alcohol should probably go too. If we look at how many innocent people are killed every week by a drunk driver there is a case to be made. Good luck though - if you bring up banning alcohol to anyone in the US they will look at you like you are some kind of crazy person. I offer no good solutions as I realistically see none, but will continue to teach my kids to treat others with kindness, along with proper decision-making and understanding the consequences of one's actions.

ryandrake 4y ago

Further, how do you even define "enemy" when it comes to how modern products get built? An engineer who is a citizen of country A, but works in country B for a company whose headquarters is in country C, builds a product that gets used by a warrior of country D's army, stationed in country E. Which country-to-country enemy relationships count when determining whether the engineer is supporting "his enemy"?

bagels 4y ago
From personal experience, if you're building things that have itar restrictions, you just don't hire people that are in other countries.
- toss1 4y ago
  Indeed, and beyond that, you are restricted from even DISCUSSING of SENDING any info to any party that is not authorized under the Joint Certification Program (JCP), and there are databases to check whether a person or program is authorized It is sad to see all these upstream comments that are plainly ignorant and advocating either some ideal of free info exchange, or that it is not possible to contain the info because once it is in the commercial domain, everyone must have it. While it is almost certain that there will be some leaks in almost any containment system, it is a massive fallacy to assume that therefore all efforts to contain tech transfer are futile. I've literally watched as likely agents from adversary nations attempted in public forums to get even mid-level tech info in my field. It all seemed very collegial until the source of the requests was noticed to be Iran and they were shut down. Yes, this does often result in 'false positives' and restrict technology transfer to a harmless person. Maybe that guy really was just some student trying to learn (or, more likely, he was well funded and trying to get info for their drone program which is literally at this moment killing people in a democratic nation). Too bad — the possible benefit isn't even in the same orders of magnitude from the potential harm. The expansionist authoritarian nations (Russia, Iran, China, NK, etc.) are literally waging war against the democracies of the world. We need to treat it as such. Yes, there are sincere colleagues behind those borders. The best we can do is to help them escape their awful governments. Helping them, and their awful governments advance only increases the risk that those awful governments will also rule us.