War is not moral. It may be necessary, but it is never moral. The only best choice is to fight at every turn making war easy. Our adversaries will, or likely already have, gone the autonomous route. We should be doing everything we can to put major blockers on this similar to efforts to block chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The logical end of autonomous targeting and weapons is near instant mass killing decisions. So at a minimum we should think of autonomous weapons in a similar class as those since autonomy is a weapon of mass destruction. But we currently don't think that way and that is the problem.

Eventually, unfortunately, we will build these systems but it is weak to argue that the technology isn't ready right now and that is why we won't build them. No matter when these systems come on line there will be collateral damage so there will be no right time from a technology standpoint. Anthropic is making that weak argument and that is primarily what I am dismissive of. The argument that needs to be made is that we aren't ready as a society for these weapons. The US government hasn't done the work to prove they can handle them. The US people haven't proven we are ready to understand their ramifications. So, in my view, Anthropic shouldn't be arguing the technology isn't ready, no weapon of war is ever clean and your hands will be dirty no matter how well you craft the knife. Instead Anthropic should be arguing that we aren't ready as a society and that is why they aren't going to support them.

▲ dotancohen 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

  > War is not moral. It may be necessary, but it is never moral.

This is the right answer. When war becomes inevitable, we are forced to choose between morality and survival. I pass no judgement on those who choose survival.

▲ adrian_b 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The problem in modern wars is that those who start them claim that they do this for survival, but the claim is not based on any real action of the adversary or on any evidence that the adversary is dangerous, but on beliefs that the adversary might want to endanger the survival of the attacker some time in an indefinite future, and perhaps might even be able to do that.

Nobody who starts a war today acknowledges that they do this for other reasons than "survival", e.g. for stealing various kinds of resources from the attacked.

It has become difficult to distinguish those who truly fight for survival from those who only claim to do this.

▲ dotancohen 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, agreed. Mainland China is not under any threat from Taiwan, for instance.

However, the Iranians chant Death To America regularly and openly. They have both an active nuclear program and a means to deliver a nuclear weapon. They are also heavy funders of anti-American militias and groups. It is incumbent upon the Americans to ensure that the Iranians do not achieve their nuclear ambitions.

▲ davedx 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> They have both an active nuclear program and a means to deliver a nuclear weapon.

No, they do not

▲ dotancohen 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Iran launched a 1-ton payload (e.g. nuclear capable) rocket with a 2000 km range two days ago. That rocket can threaten US assets and allies even into Europe. And, of course, and small ship or container ship even could carry a nuclear weapon into an American port.

▲ davedx 6 hours ago | parent [-]

There is no proof Iran has nuclear weapons.

This has been covered extensively, and this kind of misinformation is exactly the same thing that drove the US and half of NATO into the Iraq war.

Absolutely unbelievable this is happening again!

	▲	dotancohen 36 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Iran currently does not currently have nuclear weapons. Iran has a nuclear program to develop nuclear weapons. Here is an Iranian, Persian language interview with Ali Motahari, deputy speaker of the Iranian parliament: https://www.iranintl.com/202204244448 He says: `>از همان ابتدا که وارد فعالیت هسته ای شدیم هدفمان ساخت بمب و تقویت قوای بازدارنده بود، اما نتوانستیم محرمانه بودن این مساله را حفظ کنیم` In English: `> From the very beginning when we entered nuclear activity, our goal was to build a bomb and strengthen deterrence, but we were unable to maintain the secrecy of this issue`
	▲	jacquesm 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		There is proof: there is no way the US and/or Israel would have done this if they knew that Iran had nuclear weapons.

▲ 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲ the_af 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> When war becomes inevitable, we are forced to choose between morality and survival.

The kind of modern wars we're discussing now are often not about survival. Often, the initiator of the war wants dominance rather than survival.

This completely changes the equation. I do pass judgement on those who would wage war to ensure their dominance and access to resources.

▲

dotancohen 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, agreed 100%. Some groups see it as their mission to dominate Eastern Europe, or the entire Middle East, or the entire southern Asian continent. The smaller states in the areas are under constant threat.

However in the case of Iran, who openly calls for the destruction of America and is blatantly developing technology that seriously threaten America and other Middle Eastern states, decisive military action to prevent the threat is important. Don't watch the bully themself and wait for him to confront you, when he is telling you the whole time his intention to destroy you.

	▲	the_af 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Some groups see it as their mission to dominate Eastern Europe, or the entire Middle East, or the entire southern Asian continent. Agreed that some countries seek to dominate other regions by force or threat, but you and I are not thinking of the same "groups". > However in the case of Iran, who openly calls for the destruction of America and is blatantly developing technology that seriously threaten America and other Middle Eastern states, decisive military action to prevent the threat is important. Don't watch the bully themself and wait for him to confront you, when he is telling you the whole time his intention to destroy you. No, Iran poses no real threat to America, and according to Trump last year suffered a 10+ year setback in their nuclear ambitions. Do you think Trump was lying back then, now, or both? The US is asserting dominance. Even Trump occasionally says so. Iran mostly poses a danger to their own citizens and, arguably, against Israel when conflict flares up in the region, but not to the US. By the way, the current situation in Iran is heavily influenced by actions by the UK and the US in the region, back in the 50s. So maybe meddling is not the right course of action?

▲ davedx 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

When is war necessary, at the limit?