Hacker News Reader

Comment by hguhghuff | Hacker News Reader

If/when the missiles start flying, I’d like to feel that the US systems are built by America’s best technology companies, which yes, very much includes Microsoft.

Other large, economically successful countries are spending huge on military tech and have their best people on it.

You’ll care when it matters.

If you’ve got a fundamental point of principle disagreement with the idea of there being a military, and the need for countries to project power, then you should perhaps consider working in a different corner of the it industry.

If anything, the world is heading to a much more militarized future. Rising economic powers are spending vast amount of money on building modern naval capability. Only a fool would think that now is the time to turn away from the countries need for increased military capability.

View on HN

Is nobody else here old enough to remember the 80s and MAD? The doctrine back then was that once the missiles start flying you have about four minutes left before every city in the US is nuked.

We have to be realistic about the actual threats, which are either trivial or overwhelming. There's no scope for the US to fight a roughly equal opponent.

Skirmish and proxy wars can be carried out without turning to the nuclear option. For instance Vietnam was in part a proxy war between the US and China -- both nuclear powers at the time. Even outright war might not result in the nuclear option if it looks unlikely to threaten a nation's sovereignty.

There is asymmetric warfare. Imagine a scenario where a large unit of e.g. terrorists attack a city. Imagine what just 100 armed and armor wearing individuals could do. This would likely result in a military response and the skill/capability of the military is largely going to determine the outcome and 'efficiency' there.

Finally there is also the issue that nuclear deterrence may not always be a thing. Anti-missile technology is constantly improving and we could develop even more efficient means of developing any sort of concentrated nuclear threat. If and when we reach this time, the world's geopolitical equilibrium would radically shift overnight and trying to play catch-up from that point would be unlikely to be effective.

> Vietnam was in part a proxy war between the US and China

Perhaps; but why? What, ultimately, was the point of that? In whose interests was it fought? Did the loss of Vietnam (now an independent country) make any long term difference to the US?

> Imagine a scenario where a large unit of e.g. terrorists attack a city. Imagine what just 100 armed and armor wearing individuals could do

City in the continental US, or are we talking about somewhere like Raqqa here?

I’m pleased Nadella doesn’t shirk from this as Google did. Of course in an ideal world we wouldn’t need these technologies and abilities to sew destruction, unfortunately rivals and foes aren’t vacillating about such quandaries.

I’m pleased he sees beyond a small minority of active dissenters.

As a side, it’s odd seeing headlines about the redundancy of the US and NK declaring a formal cessation of hostilities and declaring the war officially over[1]. Those are the people you should denounce: people who want to promote endless wars.

[1]apparently among the things on the table at the summit is the possibility of signing a peace accord, though the likelihood is low, it’s odd to see the negativity in the possibility.

Before you just pick up and leave, it's sensible to at least say "hey, I don't want to work in military projects, I'll leave if you force me too" which I think is what some at Microsoft did. Microsoft is free to do whatever they want, and so are their employees.

Yeah even civilised countries like the Netherlands and Norway are increasing spending on defense. Its an unfortunate necessity- I wish that money could go to healthcare or infrastructure but the world isn't perfect.

Regarding "the need for countries to project power"- I was recently reading Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World. I quote from chapter 16 "When scientists know sin":

From my point of view, the consequences of global nuclear war became much more dangerous with the invention of the hydrogen bomb, because airbursts of thermonuclear weapons are much more capable of burning cities, generating vast amounts of smoke, cooling and darkening the Earth, and inducing global-scale nuclear winter. This was perhaps the most controversial scientific debate I've been involved in (from about 1983-90). Much of the debate was politically driven. The strategic implications of nuclear winter were disquieting to those wedded to a policy of massive retaliation to deter a nuclear attack, or to those wishing to preserve the option of a massive first strike. In either case, the environmental consequences work [to] the self-destruction of any nation launching large numbers of thermonuclear weapons even with no retaliation from the adversary. A major segment of the strategic policy of decades, and the reason for accumulating tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, suddenly became much less credible.

This "need to project power" is just another way to say we're too goddamn stupid to use the technology we create without blowing ourselves, and everyone else, up with it. Democracy has nothing to do with it. Raw, unmitigated human stupidity dominates military decisions in every country.

> If you’ve got a fundamental point of principle disagreement with the idea of there being a military

This is a straw man argument. The employees prefer not to develop products that kill people, that's very different than opposing the concept of a military.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com