[BurritoAlPastor]

It’s not inevitable if we aren’t willing to let it happen. It used to be “inevitable” that poison gas, napalm, cluster mines, etc. were inevitably the future of war, but as a species we decided we weren’t okay with the effects of those technologies, and we’ve subsequently been reasonably successful at not using them.

[cortesoft]

I mean, all of those things are still being used, though....

[sfotm]

Don't let the perfect stand in the way of the good. If the treaties help prevent 90% of the usage, they seem worth having.

[xvector]

That doesn't work in the real world where the remaining 10% of countries are willing to use their superior military technology to dominate others.

The only way for a country to be truly free is to be either equal in power to other countries - or barring that, the most powerful country on the block. Since the former is impossible due to the nature of reality, all countries aim for the latter.

[Phrodo_00]

In practice that top 10% is generally the one holding itself accountable to arms treaties, it's normally smaller groups that go for the cheap-and-horrible.

[drak0n1c]

Imagine if all engineers had boycotted weapons development due to the heinous nature of napalm firebombing in WW2. US military competency stagnates at the stage of napalm. Would that actually change the behavior of the government's military, or would they continue to use napalm in Vietnam and beyond? As history has borne out, I think the latter is the case. The gov will assume it is the best tool so far to do the job, and preferable to the prior alternative of mass cannon bombardment and infantry deployment.

Development of smart munitions, better sensors/intel, and targeting precision has reduced the scale of military operations, entrenchment, and collateral damage. I think that was a form of technological disruption that was overall for the better.

There's a valid counter-argument that making war smaller and easier will lubricate the willingness for politicians (and the public) to enter into war, or maintain a state of pseudo-war. That is certainly a drawback.

[bduerst]

This is the arms manufacture argument. Sure, smarter, more efficient killing tools may seem like a benefit, but it's always framed in a "us vs. them" argument.

What happens when you're the "them" at the receiving end of these smart weapons? Weapons tech is a pandora's box, once opened, everyone has it and you can't close it.

[21]

The progression was always towards more targeted weapons, because they have less collateral damage.

[slededit]

And a much higher chance of actually destroying the target. The US dropped more tonnage of bombs on Vietnam than the entirety of WWII, and yet random destruction is rather ineffective.