7 ms·

Can we maybe focus on the technology and not ideology?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
georgeg23 4y ago
Engineers play one of the most pivotal roles in war and loss of human life, and many don't even realize it. Something that needs to be reflected on more.
- jimmaswell 4y ago
  On reflection, if my side doesn't militarize space then another side will dominate and make the rules. Might as well work with my side on it and also get scientific advancements out of it. Even in the advanced age of Star Trek we needed defensive capabilities.
  - georgeg23 4y ago
    Before you do that, you might want to understand the other side, and how ignorance contributes to an unnecessary arms race. We in the US have driven most provocation in space. The military budget is more than the next nine countries combined (including China). Whether it be the Strategic Defense Initiative, unilaterally leaving the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Prompt Global Strike, hypersonic missiles, the US is developing escalatory weapons tech then justifying it with delusions that the same exists in other countries, like those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Weaponization of space has always been touted as the ultimate high ground, but we seem to have forgotten the lessons and mistakes of raising the stakes, https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative In an age of nuclear weapons, new "disruptive" strategic technology development can be extremely dangerous and destablizing.. this is not a game humanity can afford to play.
    - Invictus0 4y ago
      > The military budget is more than the next nine countries combined That's because it's more expensive to pay people in a wealthy nation than a poor one. 25% of the budget just goes to paying salaries. You are totally uninformed about what you're talking about, and beyond naïve to think that the US can just stop investing in defense and somehow end up in a more peaceful world. Please stop stoking ideological arguments, we are in a forum about technology.
      - mandmandam 4y ago
        > That's because it's more expensive to pay people in a wealthy nation than a poor one. 25% of the budget just goes to paying salaries. It's uncool to accuse people of stoking ideological arguments because they stated a relevant fact. And can you please use better reasoning? How, in your view, does spending 25% of a budget on salaries explain a budget that's higher than the next nine countries combined?
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > How, in your view, does spending 25% of a budget on salaries explain a budget that's higher than the next nine countries combined? America’s win two-theatre war doctrine [1] absolutely mandates the largest military in the world. Not sure how the comment you’re replying to even contemplates challenging that. But if America paid Chinese wages, its budget at all levels would be smaller. We pay more for every soldier, bullet and missile because Americans are better paid. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/two-theatre-war https://www.britannica.com/topic/two-theatre-war
        Invictus0 4y ago
        On the contrary: how does spending more than the next nine countries, all of which have totally unique geopolitical positions and defense needs, have anything whatsoever to do with what we need to spend to achieve our goals? It's like saying Walmart spends more on inventory than the next 9 retailers combined: Walmart has a totally different business than Nike and GAP. In fact it's even more asinine than that: it's like saying that Walmart spends more than the biggest retailers in India and China, countries with different currencies, where quality differs, and where things cost different amounts. But anyway. Suppose we spent only as much as China does, the #2 defense spender. They spent $229 billion. They also don't really value human life, soldiers are expendable in vast quantities if it advances the aim of the state--loss of life is much less tolerable in America. Do you think that would be sufficient for the US defense goals? We currently spent $173B just on salaries for servicemen, and then another $286 billion on operations, followed by $141 billion for procurement and $106 billion for research and development. Yes there is waste in the military, but is there $450 billion worth of waste and cruft? Are we to believe that are leaders and generals have miscalculated by more than 50%? Should we fire half our soldiers, scuttle our carrier strike groups, and abandon efforts to modernize the air force?
sobkas 4y ago
> Can we maybe focus on the technology and not ideology? It's not ideology to see that applying certain inventions in particular domains will bring more negative consequences than in the others. Even if former are more lucrative than later. It's ideology to follow hyper-capitalistic approach and pretend that only profit matters.
- Invictus0 4y ago
  This debate is as old as technology itself, and yet the naïve persist. Technological progress is inevitable and its application to war is also inevitable. All the amazing AI innovations, developed under the guise of AI-safety, are being used in surveillance cameras and weapons. And if the West doesn't develop the capability, then someone else will.
  - georgeg23 4y ago
    We all live on the same sphere, there is no West anymore. There is now more ideological similarity between NYC and Shanghai than there is between NYC and rural America.
    - dotnet00 4y ago
      That's one hell of a stretch, you're essentially suggesting that the average New Yorker wouldn't be just as up in arms as much of rural America if a Chinese style sham democracy was instituted in the US.
      - kidme5 4y ago
        Willingness to get vaccines and wear masks made New Yorkers look Chinese. Honestly I think when human population centers get dense and connected enough they are essentially the same. Economic ties and shared needs and values are ultimately more significant than the 6% of the population in government (e.g., Chinese CCP). The CCP is on their way out anyway and not a true threat.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Engineers play one of the most pivotal roles in war and loss of human life, and many don't even realize it. Something that needs to be reflected on more.

jimmaswell 4y ago
On reflection, if my side doesn't militarize space then another side will dominate and make the rules. Might as well work with my side on it and also get scientific advancements out of it. Even in the advanced age of Star Trek we needed defensive capabilities.
- georgeg23 4y ago
  Before you do that, you might want to understand the other side, and how ignorance contributes to an unnecessary arms race. We in the US have driven most provocation in space. The military budget is more than the next nine countries combined (including China). Whether it be the Strategic Defense Initiative, unilaterally leaving the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Prompt Global Strike, hypersonic missiles, the US is developing escalatory weapons tech then justifying it with delusions that the same exists in other countries, like those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Weaponization of space has always been touted as the ultimate high ground, but we seem to have forgotten the lessons and mistakes of raising the stakes, https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative In an age of nuclear weapons, new "disruptive" strategic technology development can be extremely dangerous and destablizing.. this is not a game humanity can afford to play.
  - Invictus0 4y ago
    > The military budget is more than the next nine countries combined That's because it's more expensive to pay people in a wealthy nation than a poor one. 25% of the budget just goes to paying salaries. You are totally uninformed about what you're talking about, and beyond naïve to think that the US can just stop investing in defense and somehow end up in a more peaceful world. Please stop stoking ideological arguments, we are in a forum about technology.
    - mandmandam 4y ago
      > That's because it's more expensive to pay people in a wealthy nation than a poor one. 25% of the budget just goes to paying salaries. It's uncool to accuse people of stoking ideological arguments because they stated a relevant fact. And can you please use better reasoning? How, in your view, does spending 25% of a budget on salaries explain a budget that's higher than the next nine countries combined?
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > How, in your view, does spending 25% of a budget on salaries explain a budget that's higher than the next nine countries combined? America’s win two-theatre war doctrine [1] absolutely mandates the largest military in the world. Not sure how the comment you’re replying to even contemplates challenging that. But if America paid Chinese wages, its budget at all levels would be smaller. We pay more for every soldier, bullet and missile because Americans are better paid. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/two-theatre-war https://www.britannica.com/topic/two-theatre-war
      - Invictus0 4y ago
        On the contrary: how does spending more than the next nine countries, all of which have totally unique geopolitical positions and defense needs, have anything whatsoever to do with what we need to spend to achieve our goals? It's like saying Walmart spends more on inventory than the next 9 retailers combined: Walmart has a totally different business than Nike and GAP. In fact it's even more asinine than that: it's like saying that Walmart spends more than the biggest retailers in India and China, countries with different currencies, where quality differs, and where things cost different amounts. But anyway. Suppose we spent only as much as China does, the #2 defense spender. They spent $229 billion. They also don't really value human life, soldiers are expendable in vast quantities if it advances the aim of the state--loss of life is much less tolerable in America. Do you think that would be sufficient for the US defense goals? We currently spent $173B just on salaries for servicemen, and then another $286 billion on operations, followed by $141 billion for procurement and $106 billion for research and development. Yes there is waste in the military, but is there $450 billion worth of waste and cruft? Are we to believe that are leaders and generals have miscalculated by more than 50%? Should we fire half our soldiers, scuttle our carrier strike groups, and abandon efforts to modernize the air force?

sobkas 4y ago

> Can we maybe focus on the technology and not ideology? It's not ideology to see that applying certain inventions in particular domains will bring more negative consequences than in the others. Even if former are more lucrative than later. It's ideology to follow hyper-capitalistic approach and pretend that only profit matters.

Invictus0 4y ago
This debate is as old as technology itself, and yet the naïve persist. Technological progress is inevitable and its application to war is also inevitable. All the amazing AI innovations, developed under the guise of AI-safety, are being used in surveillance cameras and weapons. And if the West doesn't develop the capability, then someone else will.
- georgeg23 4y ago
  We all live on the same sphere, there is no West anymore. There is now more ideological similarity between NYC and Shanghai than there is between NYC and rural America.
  - dotnet00 4y ago
    That's one hell of a stretch, you're essentially suggesting that the average New Yorker wouldn't be just as up in arms as much of rural America if a Chinese style sham democracy was instituted in the US.
    - kidme5 4y ago
      Willingness to get vaccines and wear masks made New Yorkers look Chinese. Honestly I think when human population centers get dense and connected enough they are essentially the same. Economic ties and shared needs and values are ultimately more significant than the 6% of the population in government (e.g., Chinese CCP). The CCP is on their way out anyway and not a true threat.