5 ms·

Anduril: "Killing is our business and business is good". I really hate seeing tech startups "swarm" the military industrial complex. Lots of money to be made n

Anduril: "Killing is our business and business is good". I really hate seeing tech startups "swarm" the military industrial complex. Lots of money to be made now that big war is fashionable again. It is hard move farther from the ethos of making the world better / greener / safer. or "not being evil". But there is massive money, cool technical problems so solve, and beta testing is killer.

Justin_K 2y ago
I actually find it a relief that a startup is disrupting the industry, where Boeing, Northrop and others are less productive and more expensive.
- delfinom 2y ago
  Startups aren't disrupting shit. Lol. Here's the lifecycle of defense. I work in this sector. Small company invents shit that works. Pentagon loves it. Big defense contractor buys them by making a offer they can't refuse. Big defense contractor also owns the politicians and DoJ review process. Small company product ultimately stagnates. Rinse and repeat. It's been going on for decades.
- inhumantsar 2y ago
  and completely intertwined with lawmakers. even civilian work like the SLS is tainted by those relationships. maybe andruil will get there one day too, but it'll be a win for everyone if the incumbents and elected officials end up a bit less cozy in the meantime.
  - ThinkBeat 2y ago
    I think a much more fortunate way is to reduce how much money is spent on the the military industrial complex by simply buying less weapons. That is a win for everyone, except the major players in the military industrial complex
- ThinkBeat 2y ago
  I think a much more fortunate way is to reduce how much money is spent on the the military industrial complex by simply buying less weapons. That is a win for everyone, except the major players in the military industrial complex
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    It's also not a win for people who depend on those weapons for safe. Would the Ukrainians be better off if we didn't have any Javelins and artillery shells to give them? Would Taiwan be better off if a rusted US Navy is no longer sufficient to deter an invasion by the mainland?
Manuel_D 2y ago
Disarming yourself doesn't yield peace if your neighbors are willing to choose war. You can turn your swords into plowshares, but you don't get to choose whether your competitors do the same. And if they don't... Historically, safety stems from deterrence. When countries believe that they will gain more than they will lose from violence, conflict ensues. In that sense, having a military force strong enough that no-one would dare challenge existing borders is the most effective way to prevent conflict. Peace is forged by making sure competitors know that they could not win in a war.
- ThinkBeat 2y ago
  Ok, so what you are suggesting is for every power to use an ever increasing amount of power in order to keep the peace? And that there is no such thing as spending too much money right? We got to have more and more and more. We may increase the number of nuclear missiles ten hold. or more And what the US does not win the weapons race. Then will we have achieved the goal of avoiding conflict? The old speech: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. (Chance of peace)
  - rcxdude 2y ago
    No, there is an equilibrium point. Firstly, because as you point out, spending on military means not spending on other things. And secondly, because it takes a lot more military power to launch a successful invasion than to mount a defense, if you're not planning to invade you can usually spend a bit less than your potential invaders. Big defensive alliances can help with that as well. In a world where everyone was sufficiently uninterested or unworried about wars being instigated, military spending would generally decrease over time (and it generally has). While there are some parts of the world that feel they would benefit from mounting an invasion, for ideological or economic reasons, then some level of military spending will occur.
shrimp_emoji 2y ago
Better? Greener? Safer? Sounds like that aligns 1:1 with eliminating Russia and China! :D (And really any humans that aren't in your immediate tribe.) Have you thought this through?
tehlike 2y ago
We can achieve peace only with responsible use of power. We can't achieve peace without power.
- brevhtff 2y ago
  Have the biggest stick. Use it responsibly. The idea that anything else will work is naive.
  - tehlike 2y ago
    Precisely. Assuming every other actor will behave rationally has proven wrong over and over through out the history.
  - ThinkBeat 2y ago
    Do you find that has worked well? Vietnam, Iraq, Libya?
    - brevhtff 2y ago
      Americans are still part of the most powerful western economy so I guess yes? Evaluating a hypothetical is hard. I’m glad I’m not an Iraqi though. What a fucking fiasco. (Not arguing morality just effectiveness).

Justin_K 2y ago

I actually find it a relief that a startup is disrupting the industry, where Boeing, Northrop and others are less productive and more expensive.

delfinom 2y ago
Startups aren't disrupting shit. Lol. Here's the lifecycle of defense. I work in this sector. Small company invents shit that works. Pentagon loves it. Big defense contractor buys them by making a offer they can't refuse. Big defense contractor also owns the politicians and DoJ review process. Small company product ultimately stagnates. Rinse and repeat. It's been going on for decades.
inhumantsar 2y ago
and completely intertwined with lawmakers. even civilian work like the SLS is tainted by those relationships. maybe andruil will get there one day too, but it'll be a win for everyone if the incumbents and elected officials end up a bit less cozy in the meantime.
- ThinkBeat 2y ago
  I think a much more fortunate way is to reduce how much money is spent on the the military industrial complex by simply buying less weapons. That is a win for everyone, except the major players in the military industrial complex
ThinkBeat 2y ago
I think a much more fortunate way is to reduce how much money is spent on the the military industrial complex by simply buying less weapons. That is a win for everyone, except the major players in the military industrial complex
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  It's also not a win for people who depend on those weapons for safe. Would the Ukrainians be better off if we didn't have any Javelins and artillery shells to give them? Would Taiwan be better off if a rusted US Navy is no longer sufficient to deter an invasion by the mainland?

Manuel_D 2y ago

Disarming yourself doesn't yield peace if your neighbors are willing to choose war. You can turn your swords into plowshares, but you don't get to choose whether your competitors do the same. And if they don't... Historically, safety stems from deterrence. When countries believe that they will gain more than they will lose from violence, conflict ensues. In that sense, having a military force strong enough that no-one would dare challenge existing borders is the most effective way to prevent conflict. Peace is forged by making sure competitors know that they could not win in a war.

ThinkBeat 2y ago
Ok, so what you are suggesting is for every power to use an ever increasing amount of power in order to keep the peace? And that there is no such thing as spending too much money right? We got to have more and more and more. We may increase the number of nuclear missiles ten hold. or more And what the US does not win the weapons race. Then will we have achieved the goal of avoiding conflict? The old speech: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. (Chance of peace)
- rcxdude 2y ago
  No, there is an equilibrium point. Firstly, because as you point out, spending on military means not spending on other things. And secondly, because it takes a lot more military power to launch a successful invasion than to mount a defense, if you're not planning to invade you can usually spend a bit less than your potential invaders. Big defensive alliances can help with that as well. In a world where everyone was sufficiently uninterested or unworried about wars being instigated, military spending would generally decrease over time (and it generally has). While there are some parts of the world that feel they would benefit from mounting an invasion, for ideological or economic reasons, then some level of military spending will occur.

shrimp_emoji 2y ago

Better? Greener? Safer? Sounds like that aligns 1:1 with eliminating Russia and China! :D (And really any humans that aren't in your immediate tribe.) Have you thought this through?

tehlike 2y ago

We can achieve peace only with responsible use of power. We can't achieve peace without power.

brevhtff 2y ago
Have the biggest stick. Use it responsibly. The idea that anything else will work is naive.
- tehlike 2y ago
  Precisely. Assuming every other actor will behave rationally has proven wrong over and over through out the history.
- ThinkBeat 2y ago
  Do you find that has worked well? Vietnam, Iraq, Libya?
  - brevhtff 2y ago
    Americans are still part of the most powerful western economy so I guess yes? Evaluating a hypothetical is hard. I’m glad I’m not an Iraqi though. What a fucking fiasco. (Not arguing morality just effectiveness).