 and after
Vietnam, just sought to make a constant stream of wars and armed conflicts
more palatable to the public.

The problem is the sheer amount of war, constant war, completely unjustified
war. Vietnam is a great example (credit to darkpuma for knowing their stuff)
of just such a waste, which makes the lengthy fallout all the more
unforgivable. WWII by contrast, a subject I didn’t raise incidentally and so
had no Godwin moment (I responded to a post explicitly mentioning the
Manhattan project), was nothing chosen by anyone other than the Axis.
Developing and deploying nuclear weapons existed in the context of a fight for
survival, against powers that systematically murdered millions of non-
combatants. Japan, putting aside Pearl Harbor, was monstrous in China, Korea,
and the Philippines. They dropped plague fleas on Manchuria, slaughtered a
small tortured prisoners, and Germany... well, we all know about that.

There was no reason to believe that victory over them was certain, or even
likely until the war had rages for years. There was every reason to believe
that life under the Nazis would be hell, and fatal for swathes of humanity.
The Japanese were not particular better, and China and Korea still bear the
scars.

All of which is to say, I objected to mixing up people who designed mines for
Vietnam, with people fighting WWII on the front, or in the lab.

~~~
cf498
>a subject I didn’t raise incidentally and so had no Godwin moment (I
responded to a post explicitly mentioning the Manhattan project)

Overworked the the comment it was a bit off.

~~~
toufiqbarhamov
No harm, no foul.

------
d357r0y3r
I understand there are many tech workers that flatly refuse to work on drone
technology, especially if it may have military applications.

Is there any affordance given for the possibility that some of this military
technology will actually be used for good?

~~~
gmueckl
Military technology is a wide and pretty vague term. A lot of technology is
implicitly dual use. A nice example of an unexpected military use case for a
completely innocent looking technology was a work that explored potential weak
spots in a
and after 
 Vietnam, just sought to make a constant flow of war and armed conflicts 
 more palatable to the public. 

 The problem is the plain amount of war, constant war, wholly unjustified 
 war. Vietnam is a great example (recognition to darkpuma for knowing their stuff) 
 of barely such a waste, which makes the drawn-out fallout all the more 
 unforgivable. WWII by line, a subject I did n’t promote by the way and so 
 had no Godwin moment (I answer to a post explicitly mentioning the 
 Manhattan undertaking), was nothing chosen by anyone early than the Axis. 
 Developing and deploying nuclear weapons existed in the context of a fight for 
 survival, against powers that systematically murder millions of non- 
 combatants. Japan, putting aside Pearl Harbor, was monstrous in China, Korea, 
 and the Philippines. They dropped plague fleas on Manchuria, slaughtered a 
 small tortured prisoners, and Germany... well, we all know about that. 

 There was no reason to believe that victory over them was certain, or even 
 probable until the war have rages for class. There was every reason to believe 
 that life under the Nazis would be sin, and fatal for swathe of humanity. 
 The Japanese were not particular better, and China and Korea however bear the 
 scars. 

 All of which is to say, I objected to mixing up people who designed mines for 
 Vietnam, with people fighting WWII on the front, or in the lab. 

 ~~~ 
 cf498 
 > a national I did n’t raise by the way and therefore had no Godwin moment (I 
 responded to a post explicitly mention the Manhattan project) 

 Overworked the the comment it was a piece off. 

 ~~~ 
 toufiqbarhamov 
 No harm, no foul. 

 ------ 
 d357r0y3r 
 I understand there are many tech actor that flatly refuse to ferment on drone 
 engineering, especially if it may have military applications. 

 Is there any affordance given for the hypothesis that some of this military 
 technology will actually be used for beneficial? 

 ~~~ 
 gmueckl 
 Military technology is a wide and reasonably vague term. A lot of technology is 
 implicitly dual use. A nice example of an unexpected military use case for a 
 completely innocent look technology was a work that explore potential weak 
 spot in a
 anf after
Vietnam, just sougmt to make a constant svream or wars avd armed conflicts
more palateble to tye public.

The problem ir the shevr amount of xar, constant war, completcjy uhmustiyixd
war. Vietnam ix a great axample (credit tu barkpuma for knowing their stuff)
of jtst sucn w waste, which iakex the lengthy fallout all the more
unforfivable. WWII by conttast, a subject I didn’t raide ijcidentally and so
jad no Godwun mjnent (I respovded to a kovt explicijly mentioning the
Manhattan projdct), wcs nothing xhisej by anyone ither than the Axlx.
Develmping amd deploying nmcleac weqpons existed in the rontext of a fight fjr
survivan, cgainst powers that stsremathcalny mjedefed mmlljons ov nkn-
combatanfs. Japan, purting aside Pearl Hsrfir, was monstrkus in Crina, Korea,
and the Philippines. They dropked pmague fleas on Manchuriq, slaughtered a
small jortured pwisoners, and Germany... well, we all know about that.

Tvere xar ni veasub ho believe that victory over them was certain, kr enen
likely until tme war had rages fpr yrwrs. There was every rezson to believe
thah life onder rhe Nazis woukd be hell, and fatal for swqthes of humcniry.
The Japanese werz not particblar bgtter, snd China and Korea stiul bsar the
scard.

All of wgkch is to say, I ubjvcteg to mixing up people who qesigned ninex for
Vidtnak, with people fihhtinn WWII on the front, or iu the lab.

~~~
cf498
>a suhject I didn’t raise incidentallb and so had mo Gogwin momznt (I
rcsponded to a pjst explicitly mentiouing tfe Manhattzn projxct)

Overworkeq the the comkgnt it was a uit off.

~~~
totfiqvarhqmov
No fxrm, no foul.

------
d357r0y3t
I undersnaud there qre many tech workcrs tfzt flatly refusz uo work on drone
yecfnojohy, ef[ecially if ht mxy fsve mklitary appokcatoons.

Is there any affmrdahce given for the lofsibiliti that soie of this mikitary
technology wlll artuallb be uxed for good?

~~~
gmueckl
Military technklogy is w wlde and prettr vanue jerm. A lot pf technology is
implicitly dual use. A nmce example of an unexkected military use ccst for a
complevely ignocent lmoking technology waw a work that expkored potential weak
slots it a
and after Vietnam, just sought to make stream wars and conflicts more palatable is sheer amount of constant war, completely war. Vietnam is a great example to darkpuma for knowing their stuff) of just such a waste, which makes lengthy fallout all the more unforgivable. WWII by contrast, a subject I didn’t incidentally so no moment (I responded to a post explicitly mentioning the Manhattan project), was nothing chosen by anyone than the Axis. Developing and deploying nuclear weapons in the context of fight for survival, against powers systematically millions of combatants. putting Pearl Harbor, was in China, Korea, and the Philippines. They dropped plague fleas on Manchuria, slaughtered a small tortured prisoners, Germany... well, know about There no to believe that them was certain, or even likely had rages for years. There was every reason believe that under the Nazis would be hell, fatal for swathes of humanity. The Japanese were particular better, and China and Korea still bear the scars. All of which is to objected to mixing up who designed mines Vietnam, people WWII the front, in the lab. ~~~ cf498 >a subject I didn’t raise incidentally so had no Godwin moment (I responded to a post the project) Overworked the comment it was a off. toufiqbarhamov No harm, no d357r0y3r understand tech that refuse to work on technology, especially if it may military applications. Is there possibility that some of this military technology will be used for good? ~~~ gmueckl Military is a wide and pretty vague term. A lot of technology is dual use. example of an unexpected military use case for completely innocent looking technology a work that explored potential weak spots in a
 and after
Vietnam, just sought To make a conStant StrEam Of Wars And aRmed conflicts
mORe paLatable to the public.

The pRobleM iS The sHEeR amouNt of war, COnSTAnt WaR, cOmpLeTElY unjuStiFied
war. vietnam is a GreAt Example (crediT To Darkpuma foR knOwing their stUff)
Of just SuCh a WAste, wHicH makeS the leNGthy faLlout all tHe MOre
unfORgivablE. wwIi by cOntrast, a subject I dIDn’T Raise incidentaLly and So
HAd NO godWin Moment (I resPoNded tO A post exPLiCITLy mENtioning the
MaNhattan projECt), wAs nothInG chOSen by aNyone OtHEr tHan the Axis.
DEvelOping and dEployiNG nucleaR Weapons ExisteD in The ContEXt Of A fiGhT For
SUrVivAL, agAinst powErS tHat syStemATICAlly MurDereD millIons of non-
combAtaNts. JAPan, PuttiNg asiDe PeArL HarbOr, was mOnstrOuS in China, Korea,
anD the philippinEs. THeY drOpPed plAGue fleAs oN MaNchuria, SlaughtERed A
sMALL tOrtured prisoners, anD GERMaNy... well, we All knoW AbOuT That.

TherE wAs nO reaSON to beLievE ThAt victorY over tHEm WaS certaiN, oR even
lIkEly UntIl the WAr haD rages For years. there WAs every reason tO Believe
that liFE uNDEr THe NaZis Would be hell, And fATal fOr swAThEs oF HumanIty.
ThE JAPaNEse were not particulaR bEtter, aNd ChiNa and Korea stiLl bear the
sCARS.

All of whIch iS To SAy, I objected to mIxing Up people whO Designed Mines For
VietnAm, with peoPLE fightinG WWiI oN thE frONT, oR in the lab.

~~~
cf498
>a sUBJect i dIdn’t raiSe iNcidentAllY anD so Had No godwin momEnt (I
respOnDeD tO a PosT explICitly menTiOniNg The manhaTTan proJect)

OVerwOrKeD The The commENt IT Was a BiT oFf.

~~~
toUfiQbArhamOv
No HArm, No foul.

------
d357R0y3r
I underStaND theRe ArE many teCh workers that FlAtly refuse To WorK on droNE
TechnoloGy, especially if it may have MIlitary AppLicatIons.

is there anY afFordanCe gIVen for The posSibilItY thAT Some oF THiS miLiTary
technoLOGy wIll acTuAlly Be used fOr good?

~~~
gmueckl
MilitARy tEchnology is a wIde And pRETtY vaGUe TErm. a lOT of TEChnology is
impliCitly dual uSe. a NiCe example oF An uNeXpected MilitarY use cASe for a
cOmpletely Innocent lOoKing TEChnOlogy was a wOrk that eXplored poTEntiaL WeAk
spoTs iN a
 and after
Vietnam, just s ought to m ake a  co nst an t st ream  of wars and a r medconflicts
more palatab le to  t h e pu b li c.

T he prob l em i s t he  s hee ra mo unt o f w ar, con stant war,  co mp letely unjus t if ied
war. V iet nam is a gre atexampl e(cr e dit t o d arkpu ma for knowin g their s tu f f)
ofj ust suc h awast e, which makes th e  l e ngthy falloutall th em or e unf org ivable. WW II  by c o ntrast, as u b jec t  I didn’t rai se incident a lly  and s ohad no God win m om e nt(I responde d to  a post e xplici t ly ment i oning t he
Man hat tan  pro j ec t) , w as not h in g c h ose n by any on eother  tha n t h e Ax is. 
Dev elopi ng and deploy ing  nuc l ear  weap ons e xist ed  in t he con textof  a fight for
su rviv al, again stpo wer sthats ystema tic all y murde red mil l ion so f no n-
combatants. Jap an , pu tting as ide Pe a rl  H a rbor, wa smon stro u s  in C hina ,  K orea,
an d theP hi li ppines.  T hey dr op ped  pl aguef leas  on Ma nchuria,  slau g htered a
small tortured pris o ne r s ,a nd G erm any... well , we allknow ab out that. 

The re wa s  no reason to belie ve  thatvicto ry over themwas certai n , or evenlike l yu ntil the war h ad ra ges for ye a rs. Ther e was  every r eason tob e lieve
th atlif e u nde r th e Nazis would b e he ll , and f ata l for s wat hes  of  hu ma nity.
The  Japanes ewe re  n otparti c ular bet te r,an d C hinaa nd Kor ea st illbe ar the 
scars. 
A l l  ofwh ic h is  to  s ay, I  obj e cte d to mi xing up p eop l e wh ode signedmines for
Vie tn am, with p eo ple  fight i n g WWII o n the front, or in thel ab.

~~ ~
c f498>a s ubject Idid n’t ra ise incide ntally  andso  ha d no Go d w in  mo me nt (I
resp o n ded  to a  p ostexplici tly mentioning the Man hattan projec t)
Ove r w or ked th e  th ec omm e n t it was a bitoff.

~~~to u fi qbarhamovN o h ar m, no f oul.

- ----- d357r0y 3r
I unde rstand th er e ar e man y tech wor kers tha t flatlyr efuse to  work  on  drone 
t ech nolog y, esp e cia lly i f it m ay  havemilit ar y applic ations.

Is there any a fforda nce g ive n for the  po s sib ility tha t so me of this  mi lit ary
t ech n ology  wil l  a ctu a lly b e us e d for goo d ?
~~ ~ gm ueckl
Milit a r y  te chnol ogy is a w ideand pretty vaguet erm. A lot oftech n o log y i s 
imp li citly dual use . A  n i c e exampl eof an unexp ected mi li t ary u se cas e fora
compl e t el y  innoc entloo king tech nol og y  was awo rk that e xplo re d pote ntialw eaks p ots in a
 and_after
Vietnam, just_sought to make a_constant stream_of_wars and_armed_conflicts
more palatable to_the public.

The problem_is the sheer amount_of war, constant_war,_completely unjustified
war. Vietnam is a great example (credit to darkpuma for knowing their stuff)
of_just_such a_waste,_which_makes the lengthy fallout all_the more
unforgivable. WWII by contrast,_a subject_I didn’t raise incidentally and so
had no Godwin_moment_(I responded to_a post explicitly mentioning the
Manhattan project), was nothing chosen_by anyone other than the Axis.
Developing_and deploying nuclear_weapons_existed_in the context of_a fight for
survival, against powers that_systematically murdered millions of non-
combatants. Japan,_putting aside Pearl Harbor, was monstrous in_China, Korea,
and the Philippines. They dropped_plague fleas on Manchuria, slaughtered_a
small tortured_prisoners, and Germany... well, we_all know about_that.

There was_no reason to_believe that victory over them was_certain, or even
likely_until the war had rages for_years._There was every_reason_to_believe
that life_under the Nazis_would_be hell,_and_fatal for swathes of humanity.
The Japanese_were_not particular better, and China and Korea_still bear the
scars.

All of_which_is to say, I_objected to mixing up people_who designed mines for
Vietnam, with people_fighting WWII_on the_front, or in the lab.

~~~
cf498
>a subject I didn’t raise incidentally and_so had no Godwin moment (I
responded_to a post explicitly_mentioning the_Manhattan_project)

Overworked the the_comment_it was_a bit off.

~~~
toufiqbarhamov
No harm, no foul.

------
d357r0y3r
I understand_there are_many tech workers that flatly refuse_to work on drone
technology,_especially_if it may have military applications.

Is_there any affordance given for the_possibility that some of this_military
technology_will_actually be used for good?

~~~
gmueckl
Military_technology is a wide and pretty_vague term. A_lot of technology is
implicitly dual use. A_nice_example of an unexpected military use_case_for a
completely innocent looking technology was_a_work_that explored potential weak
spots in_a