Hacker News Reader

Comment by rhema | Hacker News Reader

I've talked to some DARPA people. The fact that employees will openly revolt for ethics in groups is something everyone has to consider now. The Project Maven thing produced a chilling effect for how they write grants. They feel the pushback and have to think about ethics a little harder.

View on HN

I don't see that as a bad thing at all. Ethics should be at the forefront of discussion in new technology. But we need to bear in mind that military capability is, in fact, something we must have, and that many people are able to worry about the ethics of what our country does because our military ensures that very survival is not the conversation we are occupied with.

Which is to say, our military can be unethical, but us having a military is not unethical.

In what way does the US Army have anything to do with "survival"? Isolated in the western hemisphere by large oceans, bordered only by large, friendly neighbors, it's as naturally safe as a nation can feasibly be. Nobody on earth has the military capacity to come attack the USA.

It's defense through deterrence - i.e. the opportunity cost of forcefully acquiring control of the largest-GDP nation is quite high.

In a post-nuclear world, this is incredibly complex so it usually ends up playing out in different theaters (Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Syria, etc.) rather than the shores of the U.S. as you pointed out, but the total reserve and reach of that force is still just as important.

The argument can get slippery though when trying to justify allocating resources, because with deterrence it's hard to know exactly how much you need, especially when gaining that knowledge usually comes through defeat of some sort.

The USA's neighbors only became friendly after the USA's military got way more powerful than theirs.

Much of Mexico's territory is de facto controlled by enemies of both Mexico and the USA, and Russia has, or at least is eyeing having, an outpost in the Caribbean right now.

The US used its army directly in the New World at least as recently as 1982, in the invasion of Grenada.

> The US used its army directly in the New World at least as recently as 1982, in the invasion of Grenada.

Or even more recently in '89 down in Panama.

Or in Haiti in '94 -- though that one wasn't necessarily an invasion but the troops were in the air if diplomacy failed.

This is literally what the USA thought before pearl harbor

The USA didn't have a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying all major cities on Earth a few times over in 1941. Nor a military force that is larger than the next ten biggest militaries on earth combined.

It's hardly similar circumstances. An attack on the US mainland today would mean global nuclear war. It's highly improbable to ever happen.

Recently some technologies were developed called airplanes and missiles. That changes things when before we just boats.

And if anyone launches a direct attack on the US, they’ll be attacked with nuclear weapons in return. Hololens wouldn’t help the US at all for self defense, only for action involving deploying troops.

> And if anyone launches a direct attack on the US, they’ll be attacked with nuclear weapons in return. Hololens wouldn’t help the US at all for self defense, only for action involving deploying troops.

So you're saying the US should have nuked Afghanistan? I think you have an oversimple view of international relations and military affairs.

Nuclear weapons weren't necessary for that job, but the outcome was the same: the removal of the Afghani government through military force.

No. An obvious solution to the afganistan problem is to simply cut off all immigration from that country.

Or enact similar immigration restrictions, like Trump did about a year ago.

Deploying troops is far less genocidal than dropping nukes, don't you think? I'd much rather us the former than the latter.

ICBMs can go anywhere.

I think you're forgetting about Pearl Harbor.

Why don't they just engage friendlier / smaller companies?

I think there's a coordination issue here. Tech can be intolerant of views that don't align with progressive orthodoxy (doubly so in tech hubs), the DOD needs tech workers who are more aligned with their mission than the progressive techie detractors. Why don't some badthinkers band together and get a DOD contract? I imagine it's because the DOD isn't going to give a new shop it's first chance but has anyone looked into this?

Let's just say getting DoD contracts isn't a simple process of showing you have a good idea and tech skills. There is a lot of who knows who, and is not entirely bad I think. We are building our security here, we need to be confident people can do what they say they will do.

It's also that tech workers simply don't need the money. They aren't going to starve if they leave Microsoft or Google over some project dispute; they'll find another job in two seconds.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com