The Case Against an Autonomous Military | Hacker News Reader

The Case Against an Autonomous Military

nautil.us

22 pointsdnetesn81 comments

I don't see 'autonomous' weapons as being developed by the US military as ever being banned under international law. Let us examine weapons that have been banned.

Chemical and biological weapons were banned under international law because they aren't all that much more effective than conventional weapons yet cause an undue amount of suffering in comparison. You get no benefits, only downsides.

The other example, anti-personnel mines, is more instructive. International law bans them because historically, belligerents who have employed them for area denial purposes never stick around and de-mine the area after the conflict is over, leaving the civilian population to suffer.

The United States refuses to sign a blanket ban on landmines, as her position is that her landmines are different, they self-destruct after a set period of time, therefore they don't threaten civilians long after the war is over.

There are two takeaways here. First, weapons are not banned before they are tested in a conflict. Second, effectiveness trumps morals, if a weapon of war is effective, that can tip it's acceptability status even in the face of "collateral" damage. This is the case with nuclear weaponry, which imposes costs on civilians but is considered worth it for their sheer power to end a conflict in minutes.

This is, after all, the entire premise upon which war is waged, for the good of the many over the few who are harmed. AI controlled weapons, unless they're left in a battlefield for civilians to contend with, something that appears fairly unlikely, at least at the moment, does not change this basic equation.

Calling this an "equation" seems overly fatalistic, as if it were inevitable. I'm pessimistic about this as well, but there certainly are attempts to prevent nuclear weapons from spreading, and efforts to reduce the arsenals of countries that have them.

These attempts often don't work, but they do matter because sometimes they do.

People that I know in the military wish strong states with strong weaponry to act as a deterrent to conflict. They trust in the professionalism of other states' armed forces and the diplomatic process, which evolved over centuries of war to prevent accidents and human failings. This was greatly tested during the Cold War and the policies and procedures held conflicts down to a relative minimum, the unfortunate proxy war in Vietnam aside.

Once it became clear to planners that MAD wasn't a real scenario and that the most effective strategy for nuclear weaponry involves smaller, more numerous weapons, targeted at enemy military installations, focus shifted on ensuring that enough weapons are available to fully end a conflict.

Disarmament agreements unfortunately ensure that there is strategic space for a nuclear exchange to not fully end a conflict. This raises the probabilities of major conflict rather than reduces them.

Great in theory, not in practice.

We can argue about the implications all we want... but given the choice between sending an American soldier overseas to die or a robot to get destroyed... the choice is pretty obvious to me.

how about not sending anyone overseas? Why isn't this choice being presented? Let's draw up the stakeholders of 'sending entities abroad to kill' and find out why this choice is not considered in the first place instead of fighting over the philosophy of who or what kills to push forward a sick foreign policy.

I see this every day in American politics. Couple of days ago people were fighting over what constitutes an 'assault riffle'. Mission accomplished: the actual original debate (banning guns) was already abandoned.

>the actual original debate (banning guns) was already abandoned.

I don't think an outright ban was ever really up for debate. A minority wants guns banned outright. Most people just want stricter laws.

Also, "assault rifles," constitute a minority of homicides with firearms. It's mostly hand guns. Either way, gun violence is way down from it's historical peak during the early 90s. No one really knows why.

"Banning guns" violates the USC and simply is not going to happen without a Constitutional amendment, which politically will never happen to 2A.

Banning gun clips is viable, even cartridges seem to be optional as ball and powder is clearly a gun. Single shot weapons are good enough for home defense and vastly reduce the impact of gun violence.

> home defense

But this is not what the second amendment is about. In the words of Hammilton:

> This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the Government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the People, while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights, and those of their fellow-citizens.

People make this mistake a lot (anti-gun people make it, too). The point was never that the American people would be able to repel an oppressive force using only their personal weaponry. That was ludicrous even back in the 1700's.

The key point is that, when the rebels inevitably capture weaponry or receive foreign assistance in that form, they would be generally familiar with its use. They would have skills like marksmanship, trigger discipline, and maintenance. They might need to learn the specifics, but these skills largely transfer.

Edit: Now, I don't think banning breech-loaded firearms makes sense, but that is for reasons unrelated to the original purpose of the second amendment.

Fair enough. Granted, the quote I throw at OP also included the words 'little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms', which isn't all that applicable either...

A sufficient population with single use firearms could still overthrow the government. It would take more people, but that's about it. Just look at all those peasant revolutions which lacked training or weapons of war to start with.

Sure. Technically, they don't need arms at all. That doesn't mean that the 'well-armed' part of 'well-armed militia' should just be ignored.

We don't included Davy Crockett nuclear rocket in 'well-armed' or even a FIM-92 Stinger. So, it's clearly not simply a question of all military weaponry as long as it's usable by infantry.

> Single shot weapons are good enough for home defense

source? one center mass shot from a 12 gauge or an ar would probably put down an assailant, but only if the person aims perfectly (easier said than done with a long gun inside a building in a stressful situation). and with a pistol, by far the most common firearm in the US, you are pretty unlikely to neutralize the threat with only one shot.

Aiming a gun at someone is a useful deterrent, actually firing is generally unnecessary. Plenty of cases of people using even empty guns in this role.

As to being shot, even the 'Hollywood graze' is going to ruin your day and make a lot of noise. Actually killing someone is very rarely necessary.

Please watch some recordings of happenstances in places where gun violence is rampant, such as Brazil. Intruders and robbers attack places clearly employing armed guards. That have their weapons visible.

A graze is called that because it rarely kills - and adrenalin is one hell of a drug, trained people can resist for quite some time in life and death situations even after being shot and stabbed multiple times.

I know someone that pays for an armed guard in Panama. Simply having the guy on the property without firing a shot has been extremely effective. You can always think about that last 0.0001% but 99% effective is where you see the vast majority of benefit.

PS: Actually walking around with a loaded gun is fairly useless vs someone willing to sniper you from a distance. The simple truth is even criminals want to minimize risks.

Banning magazines based on what? Any magazine ban that effectively bans a class of weapon (e.g. nearly every type of handgun currently manufactured) is no different than banning handguns.

You can't buy a belt-fed machine gun, so banning types of guns and ammunition are both constitutional. They are fairly simple to manufacture a single shot hand gun, and they are still plenty useful to hunt wildlife with just look at history.

The clip is a weapon of war, just look at the impact repeating rifles had on the civil war for example.

As to the reasoning, a single bullet is a threat, but far less useful for mass shootings. So banning them would save thousands of american lives over time and it's also constitutional.

In U.S. you can buy belt fed machine gun. But you need a special licence.

If you remove the full auto functionality of such gun, you can buy belt fed anything as much as you want without any licence.

Single shot handgun is incredibly bad for hunting. Single shot rifle is useful and some people still use them for added challenge. But having a bolt action rifle with maybe three rounds in the magazine is much better for beginners, because if you miss and wound the animal, you can end the suffering with follow up shot.

Clip is just a bent piece of metal. It's mostly out of favor by now. They we're used because that's insanely cheap and easy to manufacture. And currently could be manufactured in a garage with very cheap tooling.

https://milsurpexchange.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/copy_...

Magazines are the modern option. It's practically a plastic box with spring inside. It has almost no strength requirements and magazines are some of the most easily 3D printed items around.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/09/21/welcome-to-the...

Most firearms with no detachable magazine can be converted to accept a magazine relatively easily. How are you going to stop criminals from making the conversion and 3D printing the magazine?

Altering a single shot gun to use any form of Magazine or Clip is vastly more challenging than manufacturing a Magazine or Clip.

As to 3 shots, a revolver that can't be rapidly reloaded is the kind of compromise that's worth talking about. Cutting the number of bullets you can fire in 10 seconds by say 1/3 is in and of it's self a useful compromise.

PS: Personally I don't think the full vs semi auto is generally a useful distinction because you quickly run out of ammunition in either case. However, limiting someone to say 6 shots per 30 seconds really world be a significant change.

>Altering a single shot gun to use any form of Magazine or Clip is vastly more challenging than manufacturing a Magazine or Clip.

Requirements: usage of hand drill and screwing on 3D printed adapter. Only parts of a firearm that cannot be easily manufactured or endlessly modified in some random garage are the barrel and the chamber.

>As to 3 shots, a revolver that can't be rapidly reloaded is the kind of compromise that's worth talking about.

There are currently no revolver rifles manufactured. So it would be very bad deal for hunters.

Then there are revolver speed loaders and half moon clips. Those things are bloody miraculous. The difference between those and magazines is so small that some cops still use revolvers.

Have you looked at the statistics of how many people die in mass shootings and how many people die in single shootings? Also do you know how many shots is fired in average gunfight in US?

>Personally I don't think the full vs semi auto is generally a useful distinction because you quickly run out of ammunition in either case

We agree on this. I have shot full auto AK-47 and I could probably take out 6 people with single magazine while firing full auto because you easily waste about 5 rounds with every burst. Switch to semi auto and I could probably take out 25 people with that same magazine. Switching between targets usually takes equal amount of time regardless are you firing semi or full auto.

> cannot be easily manufactured or endlessly modified in some random garage are the barrel and the chamber

To modify a front loading single shut gun you do have to modify the chamber.

Average shots in a gun fight is a very misleading statistic. Average shots in a gun fight resulting in death are vastly higher.

Edit: A lot more people die in US mass shootings than you might think. Once you start talking about saving 1,000+ lives per decade it's far from meaningless.

PS: "a revolver that can't be rapidly reloaded" clearly excludes speed loaders. Revolver chambers that open up are necessary before you can use a speed loader. I can only assume you are ignoring what I am actually saying.

>To modify a front loading single shut gun you do have to modify the chamber.

Muzzle loaders area actually dangerous to the shooter. And outdated inefficient for most modern shooting sports and hunting. You could just as well tell people to use bow and arrow. Actually modern bows and arrows would in that situation be technically superior.

Bit like you would decide that 60 ton trucks are dangerous. Now everybody has to only drive cars manufactured prior to 1920.

My point about the statistics is that if you make magazine change impossible for the hobbyist, you should know how much impact that even can have on crime.

Anyhow, I present you a video of a guy who is first using a firearm that is not automatic or even semiautomatic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYQBgi0TRGU

Then speed loading that weapon with a plastic tube and wooden rod:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9emvE1LIEWA

I'm actually for gun control and few other things that would bring gun violence down without controlling guns. I just think your approach to the matter is absurd and would be inefficient. If terrorists would simply switch to bombs, any advantage from strict gun law would just melt away overnight.

So you mean a revolver or a shotgun that can be loaded only one bullet at a time? And has a limited carrying capacity?

Relatively trivial to modify. Germans did exactly that to Mauser bolt action rifles during WW2 with very little hardware.

Actually, you can buy a machine gun. It just requires a fuckload of money, time, and the willingness to go under the microscope by the ATF in order to obtain the necessary licenses.

Not a new one. My next step is to change bullet diameters.

Did you know there are lots of hobbyists who cast their own bullets? Any diameter is doable to them.

98% effective is still very useful.

If hobbyist can do it, then its easy for mafia, street gangs and drug cartels.

Do you want those people to have more power and fresh markets?

Street gangs are vastly less organized than you might think. Countries that ban guns have vastly less gun crime because these are not highly competent people.

That isn’t true, many countries where guns are very hard to obtain legally have horrible gun violence Mexico is a prime example.

Some countries that banned guns and have very little gun violence also have something else in common and that is strict border / customs control e.g. The UK, Australia, Japan and South Korea all of which are islands or effectively an island since the N. Korea border isn’t exactly open.

Mainland Europe while having less gun violence than the US isn’t exactly gun violence free far from be it and it’s a pretty commmon occurrence to have gangs shoot it out and even throw grenades at each other even in Norway since guns are easily smuggled through land from former soviet block countries and even from as far as Afghanistan.

The only reason you can't buy a belt fed machine gun is because it's a machine gun. It has nothing to do with the magazine, and survived a legal challenge because all the pre-existing firearms that matched that definition were grandfathered in (which coincidentally, is why you can still purchase a fully automatic M4 for something like $30,000).

The next step is to require a new bullet diameter when manufacturered which over a few decades would make all existing firearms useless.

Net result vast reduction in gun violence, zero constitutional issues.

You do realize there are already tens of dozens, if not hundreds, of different bullet lengths, diameters, and pressures, right? I don't know why folks who want to ban guns outright need to live in this fairy tale world where all guns are evil, you only ever need one bullet, clips are magazines, and the Constitution is more of a gentle guideline than a law. If you want to ban guns I'll have that debate but at least pretend to care about rule of law and make the arguments from a point of law instead of "this gun is black and scary and I don't know anything about it so we should ban it based largely on cosmetic features."

You think we just throw away all of those brass casings we use at the range...?

Lol, big gun nuts are gonna have tens of thousands of shells around just waiting to be refilled.

And determined individuals can always just manufacture or rechamber a weapon to use the new caliber.

But you don't have to completely eliminate gun violence to claim a massive reduction...

You can buy a belt fed machine gun legally, btw. It will cost you a lot because there aren't a lot of NFA stamped automatic weapons left that were grandfathered in, but you can buy one pretty easy if you have the cash.

I haven't kept the situational awareness bubble on the whys of today's wars, but generally it is or is supposed to be a case of 1. We need to beat up A to protect B or 2. we are eventually going to fight so lets do it in their yard and not mess up ours.

These are generally morally good reasons to spend blood and treasure

But the counterpoint is that it's too easy to fall into a 'We MUST intervene to protect democracy/progress/freedom/whatever' if the only political cost is money (which is fairly easy to find for the military), as opposed to blood. Would the Vietnam withdrawal have happened if young Americans weren't dying? It's far too easy to grandstand politically at home while causing immense suffering to foreign populations if there's no blood on the line.

Well, believe it or not, not everyone wants to ban guns. Some of us really enjoy them. And Im not advocating sending more people overseas. Im saying when we do, Id rather it be a robot than a person... why is this about gun control now?

To me as well - first it starts with "I don't want to lose any of my soldiers but I must be able to kill theirs" and then more and more questions about machine autonomy keep popping up and finally we've got machines capable of making the decision on their own, and then we're pretty much doomed - not the snazzy terminator robots, just a lot of dumb plastic machines lower on the intelligence level than a flatworm, however that won't make us any less dead as a species. If you aren't willing to risk lives you absolutely shouldn't be killing people, and we're getting to the point where we really need to give it up as a strategy before we do ourselves in.

The path to Hell is paved with good intentions. You can make nothing but good decisions when considered individually, and yet, end up exactly where you don't want to be. It's no smarter than your typical greedy algorithm leading to a local maximum, or worse, once you get forced down a path you'd prefer not to be on.

What if a country hasn't got robots, but has nukes. Then the choice is not that obvious anymore.

The arguments presented are fairly weak.

The two main suppositions are that "AI can be used to target racial groups." and "AI weapons could end up in the hands of ISIS, et. al."

While both of these are true, and certainly cause for concern, the author greatly ignores the game theory aspect of AI powered weapons.

Namely, if our enemies are building them, we must too.

I'm not trying to fear monger, but US and China are already engaged in an AI arms race. It's illogical for either party at this point to stop development.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/technology/artificial-int...

Exactly so. A country without either an effective military, or a strong trustworthy ally with one, is quickly not a country. Switzerland is neutral, but that's not the same as pacifism; compulsory military service applies to all male Swiss citizens. Japan has its Japan Self-Defense Forces, bolstered by a strong alliance with the US.

So do you think the best solution is to return to a Cold War-era MAD environment?

If it's just about weapons, we never left a MAD environment. More nations have nuclear weapons now than ever before.

Two things have changed with the end of the Soviet Union:

1. The nations whose mutual destruction is assured are less ideologically opposed to each other and more economically interdependent, however...

2. ...lots of the cold war era nuclear weapons have been lost. Not destroyed, lost--they could have fallen into the hands of anyone.

Simply building weaponized AI doesn't reverse 1.

Does MAD apply to AI-centered weapons? I thought the Cold War's MAD environment had more to do with the advantages that a nation would have if it were to preemptively attack, because the weapons act so fast over such long distances.

MAD is predicated on the fact that ICBMs take time to arrive at their target, and are effectively unstoppable. The idea is that if nuclear state A was to target nuclear state B, B would be able to launch their own arsenal at A before B was obliterated.

Additional methods of delivery such as sub nukes, strategic bombers, Carriers with nukes, etc. further reinforce the concept as B would be able to retaliate even after its destruction.

Now, the modern context has weakened MAD somewhat, because it's strictly an interpretation of nation-state level nuclear conflict. With the proliferation of (plausibly deniable) non-state actors in the 21st century, the concept breaks down as it makes it much harder to 'attribute' a target to blanket nuke in response.

Arguing against an autonomous military is like arguing against machine guns or any other major technological innovation that makes it easier to kill people.

The only things we have generally outlawed is mass killing devices such as gases and nuclear weapons and I guess firebombing in retrospect (e.g. Dresden.)

> firebombing in retrospect (e.g. Dresden.)

Cluster-bombing of mainly civilian targets (with some opposing forces using those civilians as a shield) is still actively used by both the US (in Raqqa) and Russia (in Aleppo). Cluster-bombing is probably not as bad as firebombing but it's nonetheless pretty damn scary. Here's a YT video of the Russians doing it in Aleppo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnd3IYH7x1o) and the effects of the US bombardment on Raqqa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe9qS0QKFSU

Nuclear weapons are not outlawed. The US has thousands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_of_the_United_...

They are at least controlled and not practically used at the moment. And most people see them as lines not to be crossed.

This is the relevant voluntary treaty:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...

The treaty admits the US, Russia, UK, France and China to maintain nuclear weapons. Israel, India and Pakistan never agreed, and North Korea acceded.

Some of those countries can deliver a nuke to anywhere on the planet in an hour.

edit: added Israel to the list of non-signatories.

Unfortunately I don't know if it the the government we need to worry about.

We assume that the military will be the one to implement this... drone technology is very cheap now (relatively) and so are image recognition systems.

A rouge / non-state organization could easily and relatively cheaply create automated turrets and automated drones. Heck, Youtube has tons of videos of Americans doing it in their backyard just for "fun".

Would they be as good as a state military's $10MM drone? Probably not. But when you can build 10k of them from the price of one, who cares?

Really we should be worried about both.

>“autonomous weapons are ideal for tasks such as assassinations, destabilizing nations, subduing populations and selectively killing a particular ethnic group.”

This is not the first time this has come up. Even remotely controlled weapons are incredibly dangerous. I think the solution is not to ban autonomous weapons, they will be then used by non-state actors or "non-state actors". Governments need to enable better protection of citizens privacy. Currently any time I get mail, there is my physical address combined with my name. My phone number, current location and name are also bundled and probably visible to all kinds of people for all kinds of purposes.

It would be terribly easy to find my home address, tie small bomb to cheap drone and crash that to my bedroom window while I'm asleep. It's a perfect crime. All this could be done because I have said "I don't like nazies" or "I oppose Sharia in my country" in facebook post.

Arguments are fairly weak. I think saying "It’s certainly not far-fetched to suppose that a group like ISIS, for example, could acquire A.I. capabilities." is almost equal to saying they could acquire F-22 fighters or B-2 bombers as well. Developing sophisticated AI-based integrated weapon system is not that easy.

On the other hand a case for autonomy is you could potentially kill less people. Say the enemy have a bunch of tanks doing bad stuff, humans fighting them are probably going to blow them up killing the crews before they can get you. With AI you could maybe use smaller drone like things designed to disable the tanks without killing the crews. And if the crews kill the drones who cares - they are only drones, send some more. I quite like the idea of AI that could take out military hardware and perhaps injure a few fighters without killing anyone. Maybe like T2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEztkckjRtE

We already have autonomous militaries. We have for a long time. Nuclear Weapons don't have pilots, after all. I'm in favour autonomous militaries amongst non-pariah states. At least insomuch as I'm in favour of militaries in general: Temporary, necessary evils.

What is different is the plummeting costs of killbots. We should do everything in our power to stop these from proliferating to lesser states or terrorist groups. Just as we do with nuclear weapons. But at the end of the day autonomous devices are going to kill people and terrorists are going to do some of the killing. We need to accept that fact and design around it, not plead that the reality be different.

What crazier is I could (but WONT) whip up a pretty effective geneva convention style device. A blinder. It's one of the most horrific styles of weaponry - you don't even have the decency to kill them.

All you do is monitor motion via a webcam. Once you see motion, you turn on an array of high power IR lasers with lenses to make an arc of laser light. There's no blink response, and the damage is already done.

It would cost what, $500 total for the platform, including batteries for lengthy operation off grid.

To be honest, I'd rather build stuff that bolsters all of humanity, and not just 1 tribe other another. I wish we'd get out of that "us vs them" mindset. Maybe someday.

Yeah, I've quietly / privately worried about this as well. One watt lasers are easy to get. Though I think you're looking at way more than $500 for anything reliable. Thankfully there are international agreements against using these weapons on the battlefield.

There are two main functions of let's call them "modern" autonomous weapons, if you're going to expand the definition of autonomous weapons that much:

1) the decision to kill is not made by a human

2) the cost plummets so much that in the leaders' minds it starts to make sense to send one after almost everyone they want gone for whatever reason (just like it's already happening with drone strikes. It used to be that air strikes were mainly used in active war/conflict. Now it's more of a pervasive "they are always there" situation).

The best way to avid killing people in warfare is to avoid going to war, I think. Though, to some degree conflict is always going to be inevitable so we've got to prepare for it.

I don't really see a situation in which autonomous weapons would be much worse that humans. Humans can (and do) conduct genocides. If the concern is some rogue actor like North Korea getting new more powerful weapons, I don't see the benefit for the West to avoid their research and development as other countries could easily pursue autonomous weapons independently by applying civilian AI techniques to warfare.

Autonomous weapons are much worse. If in 2003 the US had had autonomous weapons they probably would still be occupying Iraq because it would just cost money and no (American) lives. Unnecessary wars will be much easier if they only cost money.

There's nowhere near enough discussion of the point that ""AI"" or other weapons with autonomous fire control are a huge target for "cyberwarfare", including outside of a conventional war.

While ISIS aren't going to develop their own AI they could concievably develop some zero-days in US systems. Turn missile defence systems against civilian airliners, for example.

Relevant side analysis of the Rule of Law / International legal precedents RE: autonomous weapons systems, for those who are interested:

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/04/a-treaty-to-ban-autonomo...

Relevant recent story. Now imagine if these were autonomous:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/russia-has-figured-out...

I would think James Cameron articulated quite a compelling case against one 35 years ago.

Has there been any technology that hasn't been used in a military conflict?

We walked back from chem/bio to a great degree, but only really because we had something bigger/better (nuclear).

A bunch of relatively useless things (blinding lasers, stuff like that) have been eliminated/banned, but again mainly because they're not militarily particularly useful.

I believe that, unfortunately, only weapons with little military use are banned. Take, for instance, chemical weapons. These are pretty much useless in modern (highly mobile) warfare.

Take another example, mines. There is a treaty on banning them but it has not been ratified by the worst actors [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Ottawa_...

Mines are extremely useful in modern warfare. The ability to shape an opponents maneuverability is critical. Mines (especially stuff like DPICM) allow defenses to attrit attackers.

They were banned for being inhumane, not not militarily useful. The international community doesn't like the idea of military actors running around with weapons that permanently cripple but don't kill; landmines are probably a better example of a banned weapon than blinding lasers. They're highly effective military weapons, but frequently leave victims alive and in need of critical medical care, and then support for the rest of their lives; incredibly terrifying and demoralizing from a psychological perspective. Countries that care about their soldiers don't want their soldiers to worry about that. The blinding lasers are similar: how many volunteers could the US get if there was a high risk of "merely" being permanently blinded, and then discharged?

Landmines are only banned due to lingering civilian effects; as long as you mark the fields and remove them, or have self-destruct tech, they're fine.

I don't think we weaponized AOL cds, even though we certainly had enough of them in the 90's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6NpoUk62CM

Psychological warfare, maybe.

Has there been any significant advancement since 1700ish that wasn’t a mix of science, capitalism and military?

Darwin sailed with Cook who was a military captain that colonized Australia and New Zealand.

Computers really semented their mathematical values as code breakers.

Medicine advances came around because having healthy soldiers won was.

GPS wasn’t even meant for civilian purposes.

The internet was made by a military, and much later, so was the TOR network.

Hell even something as innocent as food conservation and canned foods saw their rise as a means to feed your army.

The Framers of the US Constitution were rightly concerned about standing armies. Not that anyone cares about any of it at this point--we're all going to go through hell again, probably nuclear hell, then people will understand.

Seriously, how much death and destruction does the US need to mete out on an annual basis, regardless of drones or what have you? All this tech has done is empower the worst, most brutal people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com