4 ms·

Have you considered that a weapons platform like that could be necessary? Or are you just opposed to Palantir being part of it.

twelve40 7mo ago
well, there _is_ this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty "bars states party to the treaty from placing weapons of mass destruction in Earth orbit, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise stationing them in outer space" but 1. today's sentiment is: to hell with these treaties-schmeaties, and 2. what you mentioned is not yet a weapon of _mass_ destruction, so we're all good!
jazzyjackson 7mo ago
Claiming a particular weapons system is “necessary” is war brained. There are other ways of survival besides bombing the shit out of each other.
- remarkEon 7mo ago
  True, I am partial to battle drill 1A.
AlotOfReading 7mo ago
This comment is written in an interesting way. If it's unnecessary, the OP's comment is fine. If the platform is "necessary" in some abstract sense, you've avoided articulating that argument by putting the burden back on OP to justify their position. That seems like an interesting discussion though. Why would it be necessary?
- remarkEon 7mo ago
  There's ample evidence that medium range ballistic missile technology is proliferating, fired from land based systems. It is difficult to intercept these with ground-based launchers. But, if incepting from orbit the probability you score a hit is higher. The catch is that it is a) extremely complex, and b) very expensive to develop and implement a system like this. Enter Palantir and Anduril. The weight of this argument rests on how much you care about being in range of MRBMs, how likely you think it is that MRBMs will be a decisive factor in a future conflict, and whether or not you want the United States to be victorious in this potential conflict. Many people do not care about this threat, don't think MRBMs will matter, and/or want the United States to lose. I am not one of those people.
  - btown 7mo ago
    I think that three things can simultaneously be true: (1) missile defense systems based on deep data fusion with cutting-edge espionage systems for launch detection are becoming increasingly useful and necessary (2) we should be thoughtful that these types of espionage fusion systems could also be used for domestic surveillance, and advocate for close scrutiny and oversight of these systems (3) a healthcare administrator can make a rational argument that their patient information should not be handled by the same company building those espionage-advised data fusion systems... lest the close relationship with government quietly transform into unauthorized data sharing with other government actors, without clear paths towards legal recourse if this were to occur, and with potentially irrevocable consequences for patients

twelve40 7mo ago

well, there _is_ this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty "bars states party to the treaty from placing weapons of mass destruction in Earth orbit, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise stationing them in outer space" but 1. today's sentiment is: to hell with these treaties-schmeaties, and 2. what you mentioned is not yet a weapon of _mass_ destruction, so we're all good!

jazzyjackson 7mo ago

Claiming a particular weapons system is “necessary” is war brained. There are other ways of survival besides bombing the shit out of each other.

remarkEon 7mo ago
True, I am partial to battle drill 1A.

AlotOfReading 7mo ago

This comment is written in an interesting way. If it's unnecessary, the OP's comment is fine. If the platform is "necessary" in some abstract sense, you've avoided articulating that argument by putting the burden back on OP to justify their position. That seems like an interesting discussion though. Why would it be necessary?

remarkEon 7mo ago
There's ample evidence that medium range ballistic missile technology is proliferating, fired from land based systems. It is difficult to intercept these with ground-based launchers. But, if incepting from orbit the probability you score a hit is higher. The catch is that it is a) extremely complex, and b) very expensive to develop and implement a system like this. Enter Palantir and Anduril. The weight of this argument rests on how much you care about being in range of MRBMs, how likely you think it is that MRBMs will be a decisive factor in a future conflict, and whether or not you want the United States to be victorious in this potential conflict. Many people do not care about this threat, don't think MRBMs will matter, and/or want the United States to lose. I am not one of those people.
- btown 7mo ago
  I think that three things can simultaneously be true: (1) missile defense systems based on deep data fusion with cutting-edge espionage systems for launch detection are becoming increasingly useful and necessary (2) we should be thoughtful that these types of espionage fusion systems could also be used for domestic surveillance, and advocate for close scrutiny and oversight of these systems (3) a healthcare administrator can make a rational argument that their patient information should not be handled by the same company building those espionage-advised data fusion systems... lest the close relationship with government quietly transform into unauthorized data sharing with other government actors, without clear paths towards legal recourse if this were to occur, and with potentially irrevocable consequences for patients