Drone armies, expanded overtime pay and over-the-counter birth control pills are just some of the new things Biden has ushered in as president that you might not have heard about.
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?!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
Politico is owned by Axel Springer, the media house that publishes the definitive unabashed, populist arch-conservative newspaper in Germany.
They are so unabashedly right wing, that they regularly bend and break journalistic rules and get sanctioned by the German press council for their violation of standard journalism ethics.
Today, Germans say they trust Bild significantly less than other German media sources.
This newspaper is an organ of perfidity. It is wrong to read it. Anyone who contributes to this newspaper is totally socially unacceptable. It would be wrong to be friendly or even polite to any of its editors. You have to be as unfriendly to them as the law allows. They are bad people who do wrong. - Max Goldt
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.
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.
Did you actually read the article? They very clearly say it would be a major win for Biden.
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.
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.
Yes because you guys have been so responsible with your drone warfare in the past.
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.
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?
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.
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
I’m a fan, for one. Fuck China. Fuck Russia.
Respectfully - with that attitude, we’ll never be at peace.
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.
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.
The US can suck a fat one too while we’re at it.
Not just morons, paid DNC shills.
Granted, there’s a lot of overlap, including on Politico.
Politico is owned by Axel Springer, the media house that publishes the definitive unabashed, populist arch-conservative newspaper in Germany.
They are so unabashedly right wing, that they regularly bend and break journalistic rules and get sanctioned by the German press council for their violation of standard journalism ethics.
Today, Germans say they trust Bild significantly less than other German media sources.