4 ms·

We tend to see these types of articles popping up any time a new American administration moves in. With the defense industry commanding government contracts wor

We tend to see these types of articles popping up any time a new American administration moves in. With the defense industry commanding government contracts worth trillions there is a lot of incentive to spread doubt and uncertainty about the current state of the art. Conveniently, once enough fear, uncertainty, and doubt, have been sown amongst the public, the people pushing these stories will also push to have their AI/Drone/{insert recent tech} company be granted a new defense contract. This method has been used countless times to waste the current defense budget on unproven tech that often goes nowhere.

mschuster91 2y ago
> This method has been used countless times to waste the current defense budget on unproven tech that often goes nowhere. It's time to rework how fundamental / "moonshot" military R&D should get done, then. And that's not just true of the US, it's also a hot issue for the German military. We all need to separate "keeping the stuff we have up and running, and get new versions every so often to incorporate technical developments that happened in the meantime" from "let's try and see if we can hide a B2 bomber not just from radars but also eyes and ears" or "maybe we can get a Star Wars style repulsorlift antigrav system working". The basic stuff should be done by buying whatever is available on the market. No matter if it's Abrams, Leopard, <insert whatever South Korea makes in tanks here>, and ideally the US, EU, NATO and their major allies (Israel, South Korea, Ukraine) should pool their IP and manufacturing resources for a common pool where everyone can draw from, and everyone can contribute to, alone to keep geographic redundancy. Unfortunately for moonshot projects though, all the "easy" stuff has been done decades ago, and while the startups may have fancy ideas (especially the offshoots of university research), they lack the funding to get them to real-world stage, or they get bought out by one of the big experienced government milkers where the project fades into oblivion. And the US isn't particularly happy to share their stuff, not even with their close-knit FVEY circle.
liontwist 2y ago
It’s larger than military. This is how our democracy works. The government seeds ideas in PR articles to media and then evaluates if there is enough public support to do it. The most egregious example I remember is the “Russians are putting bounties on Americans in the Middle East” article that was well promoted by prominent individuals on this site, and then turned out to be fake.
- adolph 2y ago
  > Remember the “Russians are putting bounties on Americans in the Middle East” article that was well promoted by prominent individuals on this site, and then turned out to be fake? I don't recall that being promoted on this site and in review [0] the few times it was claimed, there was solid pushback. Maybe you have different examples? 0. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=american%20bounties&sort=byDate&type=all https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
  - liontwist 2y ago
    Paul was personally promoting it on twitter and suggesting war (as were other well connected figures).
    - toast0 2y ago
      I read posted (by prominent individuals) on this site because if we were talking about posted [elsewhere] by (prominent individuals on this site), it doesn't seem relevant to a discussion that's happening on this site.
      - liontwist 2y ago
        I am not suggesting HN is a target for the US government, but that prominent people are targets of consensus forming efforts.
        4gotunameagain 2y ago
        I would be incredibly surprised if HN is NOT a target for the US government, given not only the power of people frequenting it but also the deep link between silicon valley and the military industrial "defence" complex.
    - adolph 2y ago
      I don't doubt you and in taking the steps to reproduce your finding 'No results for "from:paulg bounty".' Maybe was deleted?
morkalork 2y ago
Your description aptly describes a recent Elon Musk spat on twitter regarding F-35s / radar-stealthyness being irrelevant in the age of "low light cameras and AI". Where, presumably, a LEO constellation of satellites could track aircraft optically. Conveniently something he could sell the US government, right?
_visgean 2y ago
OK but if you actually read the article you will see that this is mostly about australian position, not US.

mschuster91 2y ago

> This method has been used countless times to waste the current defense budget on unproven tech that often goes nowhere. It's time to rework how fundamental / "moonshot" military R&D should get done, then. And that's not just true of the US, it's also a hot issue for the German military. We all need to separate "keeping the stuff we have up and running, and get new versions every so often to incorporate technical developments that happened in the meantime" from "let's try and see if we can hide a B2 bomber not just from radars but also eyes and ears" or "maybe we can get a Star Wars style repulsorlift antigrav system working". The basic stuff should be done by buying whatever is available on the market. No matter if it's Abrams, Leopard, <insert whatever South Korea makes in tanks here>, and ideally the US, EU, NATO and their major allies (Israel, South Korea, Ukraine) should pool their IP and manufacturing resources for a common pool where everyone can draw from, and everyone can contribute to, alone to keep geographic redundancy. Unfortunately for moonshot projects though, all the "easy" stuff has been done decades ago, and while the startups may have fancy ideas (especially the offshoots of university research), they lack the funding to get them to real-world stage, or they get bought out by one of the big experienced government milkers where the project fades into oblivion. And the US isn't particularly happy to share their stuff, not even with their close-knit FVEY circle.

liontwist 2y ago

It’s larger than military. This is how our democracy works. The government seeds ideas in PR articles to media and then evaluates if there is enough public support to do it. The most egregious example I remember is the “Russians are putting bounties on Americans in the Middle East” article that was well promoted by prominent individuals on this site, and then turned out to be fake.

adolph 2y ago
> Remember the “Russians are putting bounties on Americans in the Middle East” article that was well promoted by prominent individuals on this site, and then turned out to be fake? I don't recall that being promoted on this site and in review [0] the few times it was claimed, there was solid pushback. Maybe you have different examples? 0. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=american%20bounties&sort=byDate&type=all https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
- liontwist 2y ago
  Paul was personally promoting it on twitter and suggesting war (as were other well connected figures).
  - toast0 2y ago
    I read posted (by prominent individuals) on this site because if we were talking about posted [elsewhere] by (prominent individuals on this site), it doesn't seem relevant to a discussion that's happening on this site.
    - liontwist 2y ago
      I am not suggesting HN is a target for the US government, but that prominent people are targets of consensus forming efforts.
      - 4gotunameagain 2y ago
        I would be incredibly surprised if HN is NOT a target for the US government, given not only the power of people frequenting it but also the deep link between silicon valley and the military industrial "defence" complex.
  - adolph 2y ago
    I don't doubt you and in taking the steps to reproduce your finding 'No results for "from:paulg bounty".' Maybe was deleted?

morkalork 2y ago

Your description aptly describes a recent Elon Musk spat on twitter regarding F-35s / radar-stealthyness being irrelevant in the age of "low light cameras and AI". Where, presumably, a LEO constellation of satellites could track aircraft optically. Conveniently something he could sell the US government, right?

_visgean 2y ago

OK but if you actually read the article you will see that this is mostly about australian position, not US.