3 ms·

Ok you say rockets and space were "worthwhile" and missiles are "a different question". But of course the space race proceeded from work on missiles. ICMBs are

by abeppu 23d ago

Ok you say rockets and space were "worthwhile" and missiles are "a different question". But of course the space race proceeded from work on missiles. ICMBs are rockets that go high and fast and then happen to complete less than one full orbit. And my understanding is that early ICs were for missiles because it was acceptable for the ICs to be very expensive in exchange for them being very light and small. Only a context that was optimizing for a tiny package (b/c extra weight also required more fuel) and was relatively cost insensitive would justify them at first. The point is building weapons sometimes _does_ turn into tech that can be used more generally. Does that justify the risk?

bigyabai 23d ago
The lines blurred, IMO. Boycotting the 8086 wouldn't hamstring ICBM development. Boycotting the microwave oven wasn't going to prevent radar complexes from being constructed. Much of the modern pushback seems to come from the new blood companies. Microsoft, Apple, Google, businesses that deliberately blurred the line to obscure which side they stand on. These companies all collude with the US government to some extent, but their desire to hide that cooperation creates a rift in what they say and do. You could have boycott Google and Apple technology to protect Americans[0] from warrantless surveillance. You could have boycott Starlink to thwart Starshield[1] and future bids on the Golden Dome. Information on all of this behavior is classified because it is obviously upsetting and creates the potential for dissent. But hiding the behavior also creates a dam-burst effect once you tell people the truth, including employees. The Snowden files were a legitimate surprise to most people working in FAANG at the time. It's upsetting to think that American NOBUS abilities[2] hang like a Sword of Damocles over the so-called Free World. When you import American technology, you also import the surveillance and opinions of the American government. It has developed in a new and insidious way that doesn't fully resemble what we saw in WWII or the Cold War, unique to the information age. [0] https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/wyden_smartphone_push_notification_surveillance_letter.pdf https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/wyden_smartphone_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starshield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starshield [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOBUS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOBUS
- bluegatty 23d ago
  Microsoft Apple and Google have not blurred any lines, they are not defence contractors in any way. They are very large tech companies which will invariably have some relationship with every industry. Apple had some early contracts in defence, Google's early research grands were National Science Foundation, but that's not defence companies. 'Boeing' blurs the lines definitely - they are 35% defence contractor mostly civilian airline agency and didn't really start as military. It's important to understand that every company of a certain scale exists a bit differently than others, and in some industries, like aviation, will be considered 'strategic' and they're going to work with 'national interests' in a lot of ways, that may involved some kind of defence contracting.
  - abeppu 23d ago
    You should read the actual post? For Microsoft, the first and largest contract mentioned in the table just below the fold on that page is for an IVAS system. Microsoft had been basing this off their HoloLens system but was a distinct product (they weren't just sending over the normal HoloLens and expecting that they were gonna work in the field). This contract was then transitioned to Anduril. But just saying of Microsoft that "they are not defence contractors in any way" is hard to reconcile with the facts of having a large contract to _develop a new product_ for the military ... even if it turned out to never have been used. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2026/07/08/us-army-will-mothball-10000-sets-of-clunky-ivas-goggles-report-reveals/ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2026/07/08/... https://www.army.mil/article/290020/ivas_a_solution_to_a_trillion_dollar_problem_not_a_video_game https://www.army.mil/article/290020/ivas_a_solution_to_a_tri...
    - bluegatty 23d ago
      I see what you're trying to say - but MS is not a defence contractor. The amount of business they do selling 'Windows' and 'Azure' to DoD is 100x whatever little tiny bit of co-research they are doing otherwise. It's not relevant to their business, that's just 'a tiny project that happens to cross into some field'. I understand that technically, it's a project that can be used for defence, but if you say that MS is a 'defence contractor' - then you also have to say: MS is an 'Investment Bank' - almost 50% of MSFT's Operations are financial. Their financial opts are bigger that most investment banks. MS is a 'Healthcare Company' MS is a 'Gaming Company' MS is an 'Entertainment Company' MS is XXX, YYY and ZZZ etc. better: "MS is a Tech Conglomerate that sells Windows (OS), Office, Outlook, Sales and Ops SaaS, and has Bing some other services, with XBox as major subdivision. They have a major financial footprint, and also have research activities in other sectors." Palantir is partially Defence contractor even if a minority of their business is defence, it's a strategic business line for them, and it's material to their existence.
bluegatty 23d ago
I mean there's a very clear difference between 'strategic tech' that's supported by defence (GPS) - and weapons systems (Spitfire). And yes, some weapons systems are just ... 'weapons related' ... and the dual-use comes later, so it's more nuanced. Some of it more obvious (radar), than others (cruise missiles). But I think it's important to characterize these things.
- nradov 23d ago
  Why is it important? Do those arbitrary labels allow us to feel morally superior to those who make different choices?
  - bluegatty 23d ago
    Because building 'GPS', 'LLMs', 'food preservation', 'vaccines' and 'off-road vehicles' is not 'arbitrarily different' from building 'cruise missiles' or 'F22 fighters'. They are completely different things. 'Tech' that can be used by the military', and 'weapons' are not 'arbitrary labels'. HN is the only place in the world where someone would try to conflate the two to make a point, I don't think it's reasonable.
    - nradov 23d ago
      That's just your meaningless opinion.
      - bluegatty 23d ago
        No, it's a substantially objective, and fully uncontroversial perspective. Given that, consider consulting with another actual human being, or even your favourite AI to help ground yourself a bit in those ideas.
    - cindyllm 23d ago
      [dead]

by abeppu 23d ago

bigyabai 23d ago

The lines blurred, IMO. Boycotting the 8086 wouldn't hamstring ICBM development. Boycotting the microwave oven wasn't going to prevent radar complexes from being constructed. Much of the modern pushback seems to come from the new blood companies. Microsoft, Apple, Google, businesses that deliberately blurred the line to obscure which side they stand on. These companies all collude with the US government to some extent, but their desire to hide that cooperation creates a rift in what they say and do. You could have boycott Google and Apple technology to protect Americans[0] from warrantless surveillance. You could have boycott Starlink to thwart Starshield[1] and future bids on the Golden Dome. Information on all of this behavior is classified because it is obviously upsetting and creates the potential for dissent. But hiding the behavior also creates a dam-burst effect once you tell people the truth, including employees. The Snowden files were a legitimate surprise to most people working in FAANG at the time. It's upsetting to think that American NOBUS abilities[2] hang like a Sword of Damocles over the so-called Free World. When you import American technology, you also import the surveillance and opinions of the American government. It has developed in a new and insidious way that doesn't fully resemble what we saw in WWII or the Cold War, unique to the information age. [0] https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/wyden_smartphone_push_notification_surveillance_letter.pdf https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/wyden_smartphone_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starshield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starshield [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOBUS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOBUS

bluegatty 23d ago
Microsoft Apple and Google have not blurred any lines, they are not defence contractors in any way. They are very large tech companies which will invariably have some relationship with every industry. Apple had some early contracts in defence, Google's early research grands were National Science Foundation, but that's not defence companies. 'Boeing' blurs the lines definitely - they are 35% defence contractor mostly civilian airline agency and didn't really start as military. It's important to understand that every company of a certain scale exists a bit differently than others, and in some industries, like aviation, will be considered 'strategic' and they're going to work with 'national interests' in a lot of ways, that may involved some kind of defence contracting.
- abeppu 23d ago
  You should read the actual post? For Microsoft, the first and largest contract mentioned in the table just below the fold on that page is for an IVAS system. Microsoft had been basing this off their HoloLens system but was a distinct product (they weren't just sending over the normal HoloLens and expecting that they were gonna work in the field). This contract was then transitioned to Anduril. But just saying of Microsoft that "they are not defence contractors in any way" is hard to reconcile with the facts of having a large contract to _develop a new product_ for the military ... even if it turned out to never have been used. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2026/07/08/us-army-will-mothball-10000-sets-of-clunky-ivas-goggles-report-reveals/ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2026/07/08/... https://www.army.mil/article/290020/ivas_a_solution_to_a_trillion_dollar_problem_not_a_video_game https://www.army.mil/article/290020/ivas_a_solution_to_a_tri...
  - bluegatty 23d ago
    I see what you're trying to say - but MS is not a defence contractor. The amount of business they do selling 'Windows' and 'Azure' to DoD is 100x whatever little tiny bit of co-research they are doing otherwise. It's not relevant to their business, that's just 'a tiny project that happens to cross into some field'. I understand that technically, it's a project that can be used for defence, but if you say that MS is a 'defence contractor' - then you also have to say: MS is an 'Investment Bank' - almost 50% of MSFT's Operations are financial. Their financial opts are bigger that most investment banks. MS is a 'Healthcare Company' MS is a 'Gaming Company' MS is an 'Entertainment Company' MS is XXX, YYY and ZZZ etc. better: "MS is a Tech Conglomerate that sells Windows (OS), Office, Outlook, Sales and Ops SaaS, and has Bing some other services, with XBox as major subdivision. They have a major financial footprint, and also have research activities in other sectors." Palantir is partially Defence contractor even if a minority of their business is defence, it's a strategic business line for them, and it's material to their existence.

bluegatty 23d ago

I mean there's a very clear difference between 'strategic tech' that's supported by defence (GPS) - and weapons systems (Spitfire). And yes, some weapons systems are just ... 'weapons related' ... and the dual-use comes later, so it's more nuanced. Some of it more obvious (radar), than others (cruise missiles). But I think it's important to characterize these things.

nradov 23d ago
Why is it important? Do those arbitrary labels allow us to feel morally superior to those who make different choices?
- bluegatty 23d ago
  Because building 'GPS', 'LLMs', 'food preservation', 'vaccines' and 'off-road vehicles' is not 'arbitrarily different' from building 'cruise missiles' or 'F22 fighters'. They are completely different things. 'Tech' that can be used by the military', and 'weapons' are not 'arbitrary labels'. HN is the only place in the world where someone would try to conflate the two to make a point, I don't think it's reasonable.
  - nradov 23d ago
    That's just your meaningless opinion.
    - bluegatty 23d ago
      No, it's a substantially objective, and fully uncontroversial perspective. Given that, consider consulting with another actual human being, or even your favourite AI to help ground yourself a bit in those ideas.
  - cindyllm 23d ago
    [dead]