this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2024
350 points (90.0% liked)

politics

18857 readers
4859 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cruxifux 30 points 7 months ago (6 children)

Are they seriously trying to paint the mass production of AI powered war drones, while hinting they’d be useful in war against China, as a good thing?!

Político is written my actual morons.

[–] [email protected] 48 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Not "they", but Paul McLeary, the Politico defence reporter. Each point on the list is essentially an opinion piece by one of their journalists.

And it's not necessarily saying it's a good thing: It's a thing you might have missed. You could also question whether "the U.S. is producing more oil than anytime in history" is supposed to be a good thing.

Furthermore, as to McLeary's point: Some - such as anyone in the region except the Chinese - might argue it's important that the influence of China in the South China Sea is balanced out by other powerful players. It's not about going to war with China, it's about the continued independence of Taiwan and other fairly fragile balances in the region. It doesn't take a moron to see that the situation is complex.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And it's not necessarily saying it's a good thing

Did you actually read the article? They very clearly say it would be a major win for Biden.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago

Tech firms and lawmakers still want more specifics on how this is all supposed to work. But if things go as planned, the success of the program would be a major win for the White House, which has been eager to display American technological and industrial might.

So, if it goes according to plan and is a success, it would be a major political victory for the White House/Biden in terms of their eagerness to "display American technological and industrial might".

It's something they want to do, and which if this goes as planned, they will manage to do it. Hence, in politics, a "win". This is different from passing normative judgment as to whether or not it's a good thing: It's a win in the same sense destroying the Supreme Court was a "win" for the previous White House.

[–] 100_percent_a_bot 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Pandora's AI war drone box has pretty much been opened so might as well get ahead of the curve. More important than the utility in an actual war is the function of weapons as a deterrent to show that it's not worth fighting a war.

[–] Cruxifux 1 points 7 months ago

Yes because you guys have been so responsible with your drone warfare in the past.

[–] FenrirIII 3 points 7 months ago

Given that many independent voters were Republicans and conservatives love war, this is a positive. It demonstrates that Biden isn't lax on national security and has an eye on the future when his Republican critics constantly attack him over the subject. Democrats will vote for Joe over Trump, but independents and waffling Republicans are in play.

[–] AA5B 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If you believe we need to have the best technology to defend ourselves, and potential rivals are already pursuing this, yes. US has always tried to stay ahead in technology and this is no different than the latest stealth fighter, or vtol, or aircraft carrier or tank or missile or satellite or submarine or secure communications or radar system or even the best airlift or inflight refueling. The first wave of drone development was a huge success, as was what we were able to send Ukraine. Why wouldn’t we apply the same strategy to a new wave of same technology, and be mostly genuine in saying this will save American and allied lives?

[–] Cruxifux 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This might be shocking to you, but those of us outside of the states don’t exactly think of your military power as the good guys by any stretch of the imagination.

[–] AA5B 1 points 7 months ago

Not at all, your interests don’t always align with mine, and any use of force has downsides. But of course I’ll usually prefer that my country not be at the mercy of someone else’s use of force.

I’ll also say that humanity is flawed, violent, ruled by baser emotions and …… one of the benefits of it being the US over some other possibilities is that we’re all (especially us citizens) free, even encouraged, to speak up where we have concerns. If you have a specific conflict in mind, I’d just like to suggest such things are never simple or straightforward: try to look at the conflicting requirements and goals, as well as history of the conflict

[–] Cryophilia 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I'm a fan, for one. Fuck China. Fuck Russia.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Respectfully - with that attitude, we'll never be at peace.

[–] Cryophilia 2 points 7 months ago

We'll never be at peace anyway. If we lay down our weapons, our enemies will not do the same. They'll just conquer us.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago

I'll be happy to be at peace with a country who also wants peace. Russia and China do not want peace. Their actions have overwhelmingly proven this. Rolling over to let them do whatever they want in the name of the paradox of tolerance is how we got here in the first place.

[–] Cruxifux 1 points 7 months ago

The US can suck a fat one too while we’re at it.