[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.