> It seems to me the "Military is Bad" idea goes back to 60's and is more about "the status quo U.S. foreign interference system is bad" than the myopic "the Military is Bad in principle" you seem to suggest.
You may be right, but that's an issue with the white house administration and those telling the military what to do, not with the military itself. It has always seemed to me that if you never liked what the military was doing, it was a political disgreement, not an issue with the military itself.
> I think the general opposition to drones killing people is directed at all countries, not just the U.S.A., so your response is no argument.
> The history of technology and military also shows that Russia and China creating new dangerous ways of killing and destruction is closely linked to U.S. technology lead.
It seems to me that wanting military superiority (or equality in some cases) is enough of a reason to pursue new weapon systems, and that will happen regardless of whether or not the US has the technology.
Einstein sent a letter to the US president in 1939, and then two more in 1940 to warn the US of upcoming technological advances and urged the US to start a nuclear weapons program. I mention this, because we developed nuclear weapons out of fear that someone else would do it, and we needed a deterrent. And that was obvious to people like Einstein.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1rd_...
> The only working way to prevent those technologies from being used on people is to desist developing them, guard the existing ones and agree on not using them - treaties, like for nukes, bioweapons, etc.
That was a good approach 30 years ago, when we were fighting nation states. Now we're fighting large terrorist organizations that exist without a geographical border -- the types of people that would never sign a treaty.