5 ms·

This. Giving markets free reign, usually doesn't result in alignment with long term best interests or political objectives. It took years of activism and votin

This. Giving markets free reign, usually doesn't result in alignment with long term best interests or political objectives. It took years of activism and voting with our money to get banks, pension funds and similar institutions to stop funding cluster munitions, land mines, nukes, oil, tabacco. Now big tech and some AI companies are on the radar.

nradov 5mo ago
Land mines and cluster munitions have been essential for Ukraine to defend itself against the Russian invasion. Several other European countries including Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland have recently withdrawn from the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty. It's cheap and easy to for activists to pretend to be morally superior when they're sitting safely behind computers and don't have to deal with real world consequences. https://apnews.com/article/poland-land-mines-ottawa-convention-russia-ukraine-1d2d9a1daccf2a55265dd0b2db5ebdb5 https://apnews.com/article/poland-land-mines-ottawa-conventi...
- ffsm8 5mo ago
  Urm, that they're invaluable in an active warzone is unquestionable. The issue with this tech is that they - at least historically - didn't have an expiration date. So if that war ends and you let your children play in the woods... Maybe occasionally one won't be coming back anymore. That's the reason why they got a bad image. Because that's literally what happened post ww2 - for decades. Maybe nowadays they could built them with a forced timer for exploding - if they did, great! If not, your descendants may consider you insane for that opinion in a few decades
  - nradov 5mo ago
    So then we agree that it's morally positive for European investors to put money into companies developing advanced land mines. As for descendants, well the people killed by Russian attacks won't have any more descendants. So that point is kind of moot.
  - dredmorbius 5mo ago
    There are expiring ("non-persistent") munitions, though generally they're safed (triggers are deactivated) rather than exploded. The former does leave explosive materials in the field, but makes the likelihood of detonating these much lower. Self-destructing mines are also used, with timers set to explode after deployment. There's some description of these, and problems with them, here: <https://www.fcnl.org/updates/2022-07/understanding-landmines https://www.fcnl.org/updates/2022-07/understanding-landmines>. Other capabilities under the rubric "smart mine" are also possible: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_mine>.
- specproc 5mo ago
  As someone who's worked in numerous war zones, and has had to deal with the real world consequences of UXO, I firmly disagree. Biological and chemical weapons could help you win, nuclear weapons could help you win. We don't use this stuff for a reason.
  - nradov 5mo ago
    So then the Ukrainians should just roll over and stop trying to resist? Losing your country is a far more serious consequence then dealing with some UXO later.
    - specproc 5mo ago
      There is a big leap between not resisting and using weapons that are widely agreed to be abhorrent. You're framing a false binary choice here: either deploy weapons that the majority of countries have deemed unconscionable, or lose your country in its entirety. There is also a difference between why we fight and how we fight. Fighting in self defence does not give a state the right to conduct a war in any way it chooses. There are numerous ongoing conflicts in which we've seen states shed hard-won agreements on how wars should be fought. It's an incredibly dangerous trend which is leading us into a new era of horror. Where would you put the limits on Ukraine's actions? What is beyond the pale?
      - nradov 5mo ago
        What an ignorant comment, totally disconnected from reality. It literally was a binary choice: without using land mines and cluster munitions the Ukrainian defenders would have been overrun by superior Russian numbers.
        specproc 5mo ago
        You ever been in a war zone, son? You ever see what happens after? I assure you there's no ignorance in my comments.
  - whatevaa 5mo ago

nradov 5mo ago

Land mines and cluster munitions have been essential for Ukraine to defend itself against the Russian invasion. Several other European countries including Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland have recently withdrawn from the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty. It's cheap and easy to for activists to pretend to be morally superior when they're sitting safely behind computers and don't have to deal with real world consequences. https://apnews.com/article/poland-land-mines-ottawa-convention-russia-ukraine-1d2d9a1daccf2a55265dd0b2db5ebdb5 https://apnews.com/article/poland-land-mines-ottawa-conventi...

ffsm8 5mo ago
Urm, that they're invaluable in an active warzone is unquestionable. The issue with this tech is that they - at least historically - didn't have an expiration date. So if that war ends and you let your children play in the woods... Maybe occasionally one won't be coming back anymore. That's the reason why they got a bad image. Because that's literally what happened post ww2 - for decades. Maybe nowadays they could built them with a forced timer for exploding - if they did, great! If not, your descendants may consider you insane for that opinion in a few decades
- nradov 5mo ago
  So then we agree that it's morally positive for European investors to put money into companies developing advanced land mines. As for descendants, well the people killed by Russian attacks won't have any more descendants. So that point is kind of moot.
- dredmorbius 5mo ago
  There are expiring ("non-persistent") munitions, though generally they're safed (triggers are deactivated) rather than exploded. The former does leave explosive materials in the field, but makes the likelihood of detonating these much lower. Self-destructing mines are also used, with timers set to explode after deployment. There's some description of these, and problems with them, here: <https://www.fcnl.org/updates/2022-07/understanding-landmines https://www.fcnl.org/updates/2022-07/understanding-landmines>. Other capabilities under the rubric "smart mine" are also possible: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_mine>.
specproc 5mo ago
As someone who's worked in numerous war zones, and has had to deal with the real world consequences of UXO, I firmly disagree. Biological and chemical weapons could help you win, nuclear weapons could help you win. We don't use this stuff for a reason.
- nradov 5mo ago
  So then the Ukrainians should just roll over and stop trying to resist? Losing your country is a far more serious consequence then dealing with some UXO later.
  - specproc 5mo ago
    There is a big leap between not resisting and using weapons that are widely agreed to be abhorrent. You're framing a false binary choice here: either deploy weapons that the majority of countries have deemed unconscionable, or lose your country in its entirety. There is also a difference between why we fight and how we fight. Fighting in self defence does not give a state the right to conduct a war in any way it chooses. There are numerous ongoing conflicts in which we've seen states shed hard-won agreements on how wars should be fought. It's an incredibly dangerous trend which is leading us into a new era of horror. Where would you put the limits on Ukraine's actions? What is beyond the pale?
    - nradov 5mo ago
      What an ignorant comment, totally disconnected from reality. It literally was a binary choice: without using land mines and cluster munitions the Ukrainian defenders would have been overrun by superior Russian numbers.
      - specproc 5mo ago
        You ever been in a war zone, son? You ever see what happens after? I assure you there's no ignorance in my comments.
- whatevaa 5mo ago