[827a]

If the United States is ever, in the future, at war with an adversary using truly autonomous and functional killing machines; you may find yourself praying that we have our own rather than praying human nature changes. Of course, we must strive for this to never happen; but carrying a huge stick seems to be the most effective way to reduce human death and suffering from armed conflict.

[RGamma]

Given how unstable and aggressive the US government is at the moment others having these weapons seems to be a good idea for balance. Not sure you are aware of the damage Trump is inflicting on international relations.

But personally I wouldn't like to die because some crackpot with the right connections can will rest-of-world to that fate, no matter their affiliation. This escalation of destructive power and the carelessness with which it is justified pretty disheartening to see. Good times create bad people?

[827a]

Reading comprehension check: I never stated that others shouldn't have the weapons. In fact, I stated what you are stating: that it is likely others will have the weapons, and for the sake of balance the West will be in a better place if the US also has them.

[RGamma]

My primary point was to state that reducing friction between will (e.g. want Greenland) and reality (send autonomous drone swarm) is a really terrible thing for the US to possess with these elites. This technology needs to spread fast if classic non-proliferation is unworkable.

We seem to be unable to stop building the weapon, we seem unable to stop handing it over to morons, and I should expect these morons to not fire it?

Then again, it's called MAD for a reason... What's one more WMD after all? Let's hope that we at least understand it before it becomes as powerful as everyone seems to think it will become.

[gizzlon]

> but carrying a huge stick seems to be the most effective way to reduce human death and suffering from armed conflict.

Citation needed. I believe there's at least some research showing the opposite: military buildup leads to a higher risk of military conflict

[827a]

Reading comprehension check: I did not say that it reduced the risk of armed conflict. I said that it reduced the death and human suffering from armed conflict.

Between the years of 1850-1950, an estimated 150M humans died (and many more permanently disabled) due to armed conflict (~1.5M/year). Between 1950-today: closer to 10M (~132k/year). The majority of those came from the Vietnam and Korean wars. If you limit the window to after 2000: only ~2M deaths, or ~78k/year. We carry bigger sticks than ever, and those sticks allow us to execute more strategic, incapacitating strikes, or stop conflict from even happening in the first place.

[gizzlon]

It's a cliché, but you are forcing my hand: Correlation does not imply causation

> If you limit the window to after 2000: only ~2M deaths, or ~78k/year First, this can't be right? Just the Russian war against the Ukraine is more than that?

Also, let's do a recount in 2050