Comment by manigandham | Hacker News Reader

Comment by manigandham | Hacker News Reader

The world runs on violence. It's the fundamental force that keeps things in order. Modern society with all its rules and laws is nothing without enforcement, which is ultimately delivered via a monopoly license granted to the government with its military and police to keep everyone else safe and free.

Being the best at deploying violence is how you defend against the chaos elsewhere. This isn't about "evil corporations" or misguided intentions, it's about human nature and how there will always be someone somewhere willing to cause harm. The only way to defeat them is by being better at it, but with the appropriate judgement to make sure its in proper defense.

AI has already been a part of warfare for decades and the value of anything other than being the best is rapidly diminishing because of the exponential advantage that modern technology produces. You either stay ahead or lose the war before it's ever begun. Given that choice, I would much rather have the strongest military with all available resources and talent rather than worry and hope the rest of the world stays friendly, until the day it isn't.

I agree.

I believe the only reason American civilians like us have been able to enjoy peace is because we dropped a ton of bombs to blast tiny countries out of the sky and we also have a history of fighting wars not to win, but not to lose. If Americans are willing to sacrifice their people and resources for a tiny country in the middle of nowhere, imagine what they would do to you if you attacked them or their interests.

I was watching a documentary about the Schwarzman Scholars, and Schwarzman said something like out of the 4 or 5 times where a superpower was challenged by a new rising superpower, it led to armed conflict 3 times. I haven't been able to find an article to back up this claim so would appreciate if anyone could point out if it's blatantly wrong or if there's a source. Either way, there might be a new superpower.

> I believe the only reason American civilians like us have been able to enjoy peace is because we dropped a ton of bombs to blast tiny countries out of the sky

This is completely ludicrous. There is no military threat to the US beyond nukes. Nuclear weapons have obsoleted wars between great powers. Tiny countries are zero threat to the USA. They cannot invade; they can do almost nothing. At best, they can kill a few hundred individuals at a time by sponsoring terrorism, far fewer people than are killed by vehicles in an average June.

The reason the USA starts wars in far away countries is to maintain a sphere of influence and protect a philosophy of government and running economies that keeps the USA affluent via trade. It is not, in no way, about defense of the USA; if you really think that, you've been deeply hoodwinked by some military warrior code bullshit. The USA's military program is foreign policy for, ultimately, economic reasons.

Thank you for putting this into words. It's sad to see how effective the US propaganda efforts have been in convincing otherwise intelligent people that the military is "defending our freedom".

I'd love to see how many millions (billions?) the federal government has pumped into this myth.

Hell, the entire America's Army initiative was literally a recruitment tool for kids who played video games. It's depressing to think about the number of kids who eventually paid a blood tax because a state-sponsored video game convinced them to join.

It's beyond naive to think that conflict doesn't exist or that tiny fluctuations cant kick-start global warfare. It is very easy to take it for granted when you have never experienced conflict yourself. Perhaps try talking to the families of those who paid in blood to give you the freedom to post these thoughts, and see exactly how many places like the US actually exist in the world.

I'd love to learn more about the history of American military and foreign policy if you have any recommendations.

Almost completely true, bioweapons would actually be something certain tiny countries are really good at.

But many have actually signed treaties not to use them (I believe even to not develop certain kinds).

Actually the more advanced our technologies get the bigger the threads.

Any country found to have used bioweapons against the US would be in a similar position to one that used nuclear weapons.

You think war between major powers is obsolete? That's naive at best and completely ignores how volatile the world is. Tiny countries do not exist in a vacuum, there are layers of resources and allies and other political ties that can move entire regions into conflict. Also yes, small countries are developing nukes themselves and I fail to see why you just brush over that threat? Are nukes not real or somehow guaranteed to never be used?

AI, which is the topic here, changes that dynamic completely, and with drones and cyber warfare there is no need for world-ending firepower when you can just shutdown leadership and modern society instead.

And yes, I want the country that I'm a citizen of to stay both free, powerful and wealthy. The point is that we are on a path to building wartime capabilities that will put one country far ahead of everyone else, and I absolute want that to be my country. I would think you would want that for yours as well.

I'd love to learn more about the history of American military and foreign policy if you have any recommendations.

> You either stay ahead or lose the war before it's ever begun.

We must be able to do better than that.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

It's been a long time since I've read this, but I believe it is stating what I said in much more eloquent terms. I'm unsure what you mean by "do better than that"?

I mean that what you posed is a false dilemma: we must be able to solve our coordination problems or face extinction.

What is the false about that dilemma? That's exactly the situation. We may overcome it, but it's certainly possible and likely even probable that we'll just wipe ourselves out.

Bad phrasing on my part. I meant that the alternatives you presented—escalate an endless arms race or perish—cannot be the only ones. The point Meditations on Moloch ultimately makes is that we must be able to do better than the eternal race to the bottom that Moloch represents.

Yes and no. It's true, we ought to find ways to work together that rely on concepts like mutually assured stability instead of MAD.

And there's evidence of altruism's superiority even on a biological level. There are some species of bacteria that when they run out of food will form a protective spore to wait for better times or form a stalk to move to a new location to find food. Those whose bodies form the base of these structures are effectively sacrificed, even if they aren't intelligent enough to be aware of the act.

That said, it's simply undeniable that at the end of the day the force is the intrinsic and most rudimentary base of everything society has become.

Public parks, schools, social welfare programs, etc... All founded on a platform of violence and murder against anyone who challenges their authority.

To deny that is folly.

State monopoly for violence is itself a solution to a coordination problem.

I'm not aware of any other solution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com