Hacker News Reader

Comment by mjfl | Hacker News Reader

let's add some critical thinking: why not use it for war? Would it be better for the world if the US military was less well equipped relative to Al-Qaeda, Russia? I sure don't think so. I think it's best that any fight our military gets into is as asymmetric as possible, and in general the more asymmetry, the less people will die.

I'd further like to emphasize that the idea that the inequality in strength between our military and various 3rd world warlords is a form of injustice is absurd and childlike and anyone who thinks this way deserves to have their opinions discounted like children.

View on HN

Since you said "for the world", I'll just point the obvious counter-argument - given how politically unpalatable large troop losses have become since Vietnam, less asymmetry in favor of the U.S. military might well make the kind of military adventures the world generally detests substantially less likely. Of course, given what we now know regarding the depth and quality of post-invasion planning for Iraq, it's questionable whether there would be any meaningful difference.

Then there's the other counter-argument with respect to Russia and China - and it's the same argument that was used against Reagan's SDI (when a few still thought some of it might work) and any meaningful ABM system. Namely, that inducing too much asymmetry in specific areas provides incentives for the potential opponents to engage in much riskier behavior, develop asymmetrical first strike measures, etc. Less relevant now than it was 30-40 years ago, but not without any merit (recall the recent Russian announcements regarding their new missile programs).

> Of course, given what we now know regarding the depth and quality of post-invasion planning for Iraq, it's questionable whether there would be any meaningful difference.

Increasing warfare precision is always beneficial. It isn't about the belligerents in the conflict, but the civilians in the crossfire and potentials for collateral damage. If technology advances coupled with training reduce rules of engagement violations the people on the ground are the biggest winners.

While I mostly agree with you, there is one caveat to that position. Increased warfare precision also affects the rules of engagement directly - strikes that may have been considered impermissible due to high collateral damage may become feasible as the expected damage goes down to more palatable levels. It's probably impossible to quantify that effect with any meaningful accuracy and I'm strongly inclined to think precision warfare is still a net win, but it's not quite an unmitigated benefit with no side effects.

The US military has killed far more civilians and promoted far more terror around the world than the Russian Federation or Al Qaeda. Your belief that war is good when enacted by your country is so childlike that it is literally promoted by cartoons and action films aimed at children.

So your idea is that if maybe China/Russia(or the adversary of the day) does this then anyone should do it.

Even if China does not do it, does anyone else should do it anyway to be on top of China. Do you draw a line anywhere? like should everyone research weapons forever to try to get/remain on top?

My second point is even if you go ahead and do weapons let the people speak and have a debate, telling us that having more weapons is good is dogma IMO, debating this dogma and respecting the people that don't want to create weapons should be a given in a free society.

The problem with current weapon systems is that they are too powerful. The US military is now primarily focusing on weaker but more precise guided weapons to avoid collateral damage.

> deserves to have their opinions discounted like children.

Although I agree with your general sentiment, there's no need for ad hominem attacks like this.

I agree. Probably doesn't help the point get across...

When a company finishes developing a weapon for one purpose, it thinks of all the other possible ways to profit from it, then you have several million reasons not to turn down foreign countries because of those "pesky ethical questions".

This isn't a theoretical discussion, because people are already selling combat technology based on HoloLens outside of the US.

Interesting thought experiment: if you think of the military as a business - then you’re basically advocating for the US to have a monopoly on military power.

yes.

3rd world warlords aren't the only other militaries in the world.

I’d say your paranoia and justification for any tool to be used for a potential unknown threat deserves to get discounted like a child’s

Yes it would be better for the world if the US took a more collaborative approach with other regional powers that it disagrees with

Reply on news.ycombinator.com