Hacker News Reader

Comment by CalRobert | Hacker News Reader

Not to put words in their mouth but isn't that pretty clear? If you don't develop advanced weaponry, you are going to be killed by people who _do_ develop advanced weaponry.

Unless you manage to stop the advanced weaponry from being developed at all, which is admirable, but incredibly difficult, and with huge consequences for being wrong.

View on HN

That depends on your model of international relations. Most states have recognized that international relationships are far from zero sum, and that wars between peer competitors are almost never worth it. Indeed, the success stories since WW2 have been those countries that have spent very little on weapons, and engaged in few wars (with the US being the exception).

Even if you take WW2 and WW1 into account, the biggest winner of those conflicts (the US) spent the least on armaments prior, and had probably the least aggressive foreign policy of any major power.

> have been those countries that have spent very little on weapons, and engaged in few wars (with the US being the exception).

Perhaps, because the US is an exception.

Maybe? China has historically spent very little on its military, and it's not like they benefited from US protection. Quite the opposite, in fact.

China's military spending is now effectively near parity with the USA and rising rapidly.

https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/chinas-defense-s...

Dunno about the methodology there, but, that's why I said historically.

Great, so maybe it's time to revise the rest of the thinking as well.

>>but isn't that pretty clear?

No, for me it's counterintuitive. Personally I'd never contribute to any military technology.

OK, but that means someone with good weapons can kill you and take your stuff.

killing me is easy enough as-is, without the need for advanced technology. Literally any cop can bash my head in. Further arms race when nuclear weapons are present is pointless, as any conflict with nuclear power is likely to end in nuclear exchange, and is acceptable only if you are a psycho that thinks megadeaths is just a number upon which strategy can be built.

Although the idea that MAD saved us from a nuclear holocaust is prevalent, people tend to forget how a strong anti-war effort was required to dissuade the crazy people from ideas like megadeaths being an ok strategic decision and stopping plans like the "Star Wars Program" on their tracks (which has unfortunately resumed with potentially tragic consequences).

These weapons and technologies are developed by nation-states only, and a collaboration, however unlikely might seem to you, is the only way to stop us from pointing guns at each others heads with AI controlling the trigger.

The technologies will be developed, and have to be developed for the sake of balancing powers, but they need to be put in a drawer and locked there after being designed, not widely deployed and flaunted at each other.

Or unless you have a significant enough deterrent and the credibility to use it in basically any sort of conflict (N. Korea may fit into this category)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com