Do we want to speed up war? Some dev accidentally merges the "launch the nukes" PR, and nuclear apocalypse commences.
I don’t think this is as simple of a decision as some tend to make it out to be. Technology tends to be one of the factors that reshape geopolitical spheres.
Should it be taken as positive on the whole, though? Dominance is a reality that we live with, and one that the US certainly benefits in some ways from. However, there are another 7b (or so) people on the planet who suffer the consequences of our military dominion (their backyards), national interests (their natural resources), etc...
> Technology tends to be one of the factors that reshape geopolitical spheres.
there's a bias on HN towards blaming "the tech" for all "the things"... how about: social unrest, resource extraction, and empire building? these are much less tech-centric, yet real and studied causes for geopolitical reshapement.
what about the Palestinians? the Syrians? The Yememi? The Chileans? The Colombians? The Vietnamese? The North Koreans?
take a look at a history of US meddling in the world... and consider sort of world we might have it the US military and its industry (and those of its allies) hadn't nosed it's way into all corners of the world pushing for hegemony of "Democracy", the US dollar, and their economic interests.
In a whole bunch of possible outcomes you have Soviet failure everywhere.
> In a whole bunch of possible outcomes
in a whole bunch of actual outcomes, you have US failure everywhere
My comment on technology is not just confined to electronics - there is a long history of military technology affecting battles, and perceived advantages/disadvantages of countries, which results in decisions being made according to that calculus. One small slice of that history is the introduction of guns to Native Americans. I purposefully did not say it was the only cause, and it is a complete misreading of my comment to state otherwise.
> complete misreading of my comment to state otherwise.
great... I didn't say otherwise.
~ General 'Buck' Turgidson
#DrStrangelove
Maybe they'll get pretty good at playing catch-up with this strategy. Also note that this suppresses intellectual freedom. US will have "people advantage" for the foreseeable future because of diversity and education. For e.g. A chance meeting between myself and an elementary school principal for a school in rural Oklahoma led to a (free) "Intro to South Indian Classical Music" Skype session with some kids and my sister who lives in India! This scenario is possible in China as well, but more probable in America now and the foreseeable future.
The point is that exposure to this kind of diversity sparks creativity. Google "chinese education rural vs. urban" to see the gap. This gap is not so great in America. So coupled with diversity and better education, US students are much better placed to forge the future!
A good example country is North Korea; they have nuclear weapons, but there conventional military is so weak compared to their neighbors that the only thing nukes get them is food aid.
For a practical example, let's say we never bothered to invest in point defense for our destroyers and they were completely vulnerable to Chinese anti-ship missiles. One day China sinks a destroyer as a show of force. Should we nuke Beijing? Or would it be better to have a strong Navy/Air force in place to respond conventionally by taking out the missile launchers?
If you think there's any possibility that your country might have to fight any kind of war, including a war of defensive national survival, then you better hope they're able to do it quickly when it happens.
edit Why is this comment automatically closing?
War on Poverty.
Afghanistan.
Here we go again. Using the word "war" for all sorts of things that have nothing to do with actual war, even in a discussion about actual war.
The US is the most heavily armed country in the world, and it's domestic population is not unaccounted for in terms of armaments.
edit - I realize it's considered uncouth to have a meta-convo about downvotes, but why the f* is this comment downvoted?
edit2 - stupid dummy... I wrote Chile & meant Costa Rica
Chile has a substantial defense capability, allied with the US. We host their cadets at our military academies, and ours at theirs. Maybe you're thinking of a different country.
I wrote Chile & meant Costa Rica. Thanks :)
There's no such thing as a country with no defense forces. You either have your own forces or are aligned with a major power (US/RUS/CHN).
Not really much to plunder my country for, and if they wanted to, they already did (enclaves about a century ago).
Armed conflict is only necessary if you don't give people what they want.
Unfortunately, we're not there, and it's probably not a stable equilibrium. Instead, history has shown that complacency does not lead to peace.
So what to do? I think the correct answer is to match other countries capabilities, but always always always take a "peace first" approach to everything. It's far from perfect, but it does lead to progress. As such, such things as analyzing drone footage with AI, datacenter contracts, satellite bandwidth contracts, etc, are a necessary part of the peace process.
You can't just destroy a regime, replace that with another democratic one and expect that a State of peace will grow. This just doesn't work. People from different areas of the world are used to different way of dealing with power, for cultural and religion issues. This is especially true with stabilizing an extremist Muslim regime. You need to cut their extreme belief, destroy their motivation, give them other chances. Examples: Gaza, Paris and its suburbs, etc.
Most of the time, in those contexts, war doesn't resolve anything.