[gaius]

You do realize there are major superpowers that are currently kept at bay through the promise of force?

Do you think they are deterred by observing American success in the ground campaigns it keeps losing or by the nuclear arsenal?

[manigandham]

Nuclear arsenals are part of the military, and what campaigns do you think the US is losing? What materially have we actually lost?

Let's not conflate foreign policy and politics with military might. Things can go wrong from bad leadership regardless of what powers are at command, but those powers at the same time guarantee a certain level of safety and capability on behalf of the nation's interests. I don't see how you can deny that with any sense of reality.

[gaius]

what campaigns do you think the US is losing? What materially have we actually lost?

There's no sign of a stable liberal secular democracy emerging anytime soon in Afghanistan or Iraq is there? At the cost of trillions upon trillions of dollars if you only want to focus on material things. But you can point at an American campaign, Somalia, Vietnam as I've mentioned, any adventures in Latin America... And then there's Ukraine, whose territorial integrity America guaranteed in return for giving up its own nuclear weapons, and yet the Russians waltzed in an annexed the Crimea without any trouble at all.

America does all these things when it is in no danger itself, and millions upon millions of innocent people die because of it, and that is why people have misgivings about working on drone targeting.

[manigandham]

I'm talking about having the biggest gun to make sure we can defend ourselves against any threat. You're talking about who uses that gun and for what. That's a fine debate to have, but it's not the same topic.

I agree foreign policy needs work, and there is harm caused, but that has nothing to do with military strength. Perhaps this conflation is the real issue with these threads as people can't seem to separate power and capabilities from its application.

[gaius]

I'm talking about having the biggest gun to make sure we can defend ourselves against any threat

Yes that's fine. If America were facing an existential threat. Defence of one's home/property is the fundamental human right that is the basis of all rights. No question from me there.

You're talking about who uses that gun and for what. That's a fine debate to have, but it's not the same topic.

I believe they are inextricably linked. I would wager many of those reluctant to work on dronetech right now, in the present circumstances of its use, would be perfectly willing to do so if the enemy really were at the gates.

[manigandham]

That's the thing, a strong defense keeps the enemy from ever getting to the gates in the first place. If you wait until they're already there, it's too late. In the age of AI delivering exponential advancements, time is only more important.