Hacker News Reader

Comment by landryraccoon | Hacker News Reader

Do you think it’s a risk that more authoritarian and belligerent states develop them first?

War has been a constant force in human history up to and including the present day. I would greatly prefer that if such weapons exist that my society has access to them if others are sure to follow.

For that reason I think it’s ethical to work on weapons technology. You could be a principled pacifist, but I think that’s self defeating. Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons, that did not bring them peace. Arguably if they had nukes, they would not be at war.

View on HN

> Do you think it’s a risk that more authoritarian and belligerent states develop them first?

It does not require the development and realization of a technology to create a defense against that technology. We don't fight bombers with bombers, nor do we fight ICBMs with ICBMs, nor nukes with nukes (OK, perhaps not the best example, but only because MAD is a political deterrant against rational actors (which one can argue Putin is not)).

> Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons, that did not bring them peace. Arguably if they had nukes, they would not be at war.

Only if they were depraved enough to use them. At which point they have to concede that they too will be annihilated. The threat of nukes alone does not prevent a country from being attacked - especially by madmen.

I think you have a simplistic view of strategic counters. The weapon that counters an ICBM is, in fact, an ICBM. The counter for a bomber is another plane. The counter for the plane is a faster bomber, another plane. And the counter to that is an AI plane, and then an AI bomber, etc. If you are thinking "missile defense", missiles are simply rocket-based drones, and they will have to become smarter too.

Whatever your weapon of choice, the counter is AI <something>. We test this theory every day with Bots vs Humans in any number of computer games. Bots will kill you every time, as long as they can recognize you. Hence AI Vision (and sensing in general) being the last hurdle.

> The weapon that counters an ICBM is, in fact, an ICBM

Not at all. You can't hit an ICBM with an ICBM. All you can do is retaliate.

> The counter for a bomber is another plane.

Realistically, the counter is RADAR. Once you see the bomber, you can use any number of tools against it, including aircraft, SAMs, surface-to-air artillery, blacking out cities, etc.

> missiles are simply rocket-based drones

For an incredibly specific definition of a drone, sure. But in that case, so are bombs, satellites, and steerable ballistic projectiles.

> and they will have to become smarter too.

They have.

> the counter is AI

Not at all. An AI still has to operate a craft within the bounds of physics, and an aircraft flown at any speed will still follow a predictable path. Getting close enough with hypersonic shrapnel has proven effective throughout the years.

> We test this theory every day with Bots vs Humans in any number of computer games.

Bots in games don't need to follow the laws of physics. Their performance doesn't degrade with damage or environmental conditions. They have perfect information beyond just their vision.

Also, bots in games that require more information than "see avatar shoot avatar" - i.e. RTS games - have to cheat to outwit humans.

> We don't fight bombers with bombers

The Six Day War was won by an inferior fighting force when Israel used bombers to attack bombers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Focus

> nor do we fight ICBMs with ICBMs

Our only viable methods of defense against ICBMs is ABMs, which are basically the same thing in every way except the targeting systems and maybe payload.

Unless I misread that wiki page, they defeated fixed ground airports with bombers. Which is 100% a usecase for bombers, and always has been. The innovation there was a different bomb.

An ABM is not a ballistic missile - which is to say it does not travel in a ballistic trajectory. It's a specialized SAM designed for attacking ballistic missiles. In addition to the targeting systems and payload other thing that's different is the motor - providing a greater propulsive force with a shorter overall range - which is basically the entire missile.

They didn't just destroy airfields, they also destroyed aircraft. 450 in total, across the Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian Air Forces. I know bombing a sitting plane in an open airfield isn't out of the ordinary or impressive, but it is nonetheless an example of a bomber being used to attack other bombers, and to great strategic effect.

Put the engineers in charge of the executive state, then we can talk.

Yeah, "guys who work at software companies that don't have degrees in engineering but get to call themselves engineers."

Let's put them in charge.

Your favored poor "professional engineers" whose greatest claim to fame is being able to follow an ISO certification to build a bridge. They can wallow in poverty (and stay out of politics).

Ah, you don't just dislike credentialism, you dislike the credentialed.

You're missing an important caveat of your own argumentation; if you believe in Liberalism you must by extension have some skepticism concerning the ability of authoritarian states to, "keep up" with freer states in terms of innovation and cultural robustness. Otherwise you're arguing for an arbitrary terminal struggle between competing world cultures. (try reading history). You're basically scared by the current war in Ukraine and are willing to take on an ugly foreign policy position to feel safe.

It's going to be a bunch of software developers wearing t-shirts and shorts that eventually bring us to nuclear war. You know, "to keep their daughters safe."

Fuck all of you.

I don't believe what you think I do.

Authoritarian states have been the default for most of human civilization. Freedom is a good, but it doesn't "auto-win". It can lose, and in fact it has lost, over and over and over again, throughout human history.

Native American tribes were arguably more free than Europeans at the time the new world was discovered. Unfortunately, they didn't have guns and horses, and the Europeans did. I would prefer not to end up on the side without the guns and the horses the next time a paradigm changing military technology is discovered.

If we want to keep the society we prefer, we have to fight for it. That's not because we like fighting, that's simply the only way it's been made to ever work at any point in history.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com