[dttze]

> protects our interest as Americans

Whose? Not mine.

To me, yours is the strange viewpoint. We have nukes and a massive air force. That is the bulk of the deterrence. Use good statesmanship and diplomacy and that covers the rest. Anything else being developed is for political suppression or fueling regional wars and imperial bullshit.

[iczero]

> We have nukes and a massive air force.

> YC is funding weapon manufacturers lol. Where are the ethics there?

Circular reasoning? The reason we have a massive and more importantly effective air force is because weapons development occurred. It would not take very long at all for China to surpass the US in terms of air effectiveness if the US stopped working on defense projects.

[dttze]

There is no circular reasoning here. I said funding weapons development is unethical, guy responded saying we need weapon development for deterrence, I point out that we have had plenty of effective weapons and the new ones will not be used for peer wars but for gladio/terrorism or regional wars.

Further weapon development just fuels arms races and puts the world in a worse place. That is why I find it unethical to fund it.

Also, btw, China already surpassed us despite all our spending. They are defining what a 6th gen fighter is, after all.

[Apocryphon]

We have far more carriers though

[rabidonrails]

And that's fine, but they're solely yours. 57% of US citizens support expanding the military.

Further you have no evidence to back up your claim that anything outside of the Air Force and nukes are all that are required to properly deter threats.

I would imagine that you also have no credible evidence that "Anything else being developed is for political suppression or fueling regional wars and imperial bullshit."

If you don't want to be involved in developing weapons then that's fine, nobody is forcing you to do so. To claim someone as anti-ethical because they chose to do so in a legal way may be your opinion but surely not a fact.