←back to thread

617 points jbegley | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
tmnvdb ◴[] No.42940589[source]
Good, this idea that all weapons are evil is an insane luxury belief.
replies(10): >>42940656 #>>42940666 #>>42940969 #>>42940977 #>>42941357 #>>42941474 #>>42941623 #>>42941755 #>>42941872 #>>42944147 #
ckrapu ◴[] No.42940656[source]
There is a wide range of moral and practical opinions between the statement “all weapons are evil” and “global corporations ought not to develop autonomous weapons”.
replies(3): >>42940711 #>>42940795 #>>42941137 #
vasco ◴[] No.42940795[source]
Palantir exists, this would just be competition. It's not like Google is the only company capable of creating autonomous weapons so if they abstain the world is saved. They just want a piece of the pie. The problem is the pie comes with dead babies, but if you forget that part it's alright.
replies(2): >>42940917 #>>42940958 #
tmnvdb ◴[] No.42940958{3}[source]
With or without autonomous weapons, war is always a sordid business with 'dead babies', this is not in itself a fact that tells us what weapons systems to develop.
replies(1): >>42940992 #
darth_avocado ◴[] No.42940992[source]
Yet there are boundaries on which weapons we can and cannot develop: Nuclear, Chemical, Biological etc.
replies(2): >>42941178 #>>42942113 #
1. _bin_ ◴[] No.42942113{5}[source]
those are mostly drawn on how difficult it is to manage their effects. chemical weapons are hard to target, nukes are too (unless one dials the yield down enough that there's little point) and make land unusable for years, and biological weapons can't really be contained to military targets.

we have, of course, developed all three. they have gone a long way towards keeping us safe over the past century.