Silicon Valley is transforming the military-industrial complex? (2024)

Post by abeppu » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 2:09 AM UTC

bluegatty wrote: post #329

abeppu wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should read the actual post? For Microsoft, the first and largest contract mentioned in the table just below the fold on that page is for an IVAS system. Microsoft had been basing this off their HoloLens system but was a distinct product (they weren't just sending over the normal HoloLens and expecting that they were gonna work in the field). This contract was then transitioned to Anduril. But just saying of Micr…

I see what you're trying to say - but MS is not a defence contractor. The amount of business they do selling 'Windows' and 'Azure' to DoD is 100x whatever little tiny bit of co-research they are doing otherwise. It's not relevant to their business, that's just 'a tiny project that happens to cross into some field'. I understand that technically, it's a project that can be used for defence, but if you say that MS is a…

Post by master_crab » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 2:36 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #291

nradov wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia not nuking Ukraine had nothing to do with ethics or morals. It's more pragmatic than that. Putin wants to take Ukraine largely intact to control its population and resources, not turn it into an irradiated wasteland. And he knows that use of WMDs would invite economic sanctions from key neutral trading partners such as India. Also, it's questionable whether Russia's nuclear arsenal would even work reliably. Th…

> Putin wants to take Ukraine largely intact to control its population and resources, not turn it into an irradiated wasteland Nuking Kyiv, Odessa and Lviv would probably force Ukraine to surrender. > use of WMDs would invite economic sanctions from key neutral trading partners such as India This is the real constraint. There is still the credible threat of being economically isolated by America, Europe, China and In…

Post by bluegatty » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 2:48 AM UTC

abeppu wrote: post #278

bluegatty wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point, but there's a very big difference between dual use tech that gets it's start in the military, vs building weapons systems. Silicon, GPS, the Internet, nuclear power, most of rocketry and space etc., I think most would believe was worthwhile. Building cruise missiles, or 'Civilian Monitoring Tech' - that's a different question. I don't think that DARPA, the internet, or NASA etc. count as 'Military Industr…

Ok you say rockets and space were "worthwhile" and missiles are "a different question". But of course the space race proceeded from work on missiles. ICMBs are rockets that go high and fast and then happen to complete less than one full orbit. And my understanding is that early ICs were for missiles because it was acceptable for the ICs to be very expensive in exchange for them being very light and small. Only a cont…

Post by slg » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 2:53 AM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #322

slg wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nobody reasonable would. Russia started a war of choice. That's the opposite of pacifism. Yes, that was my point. The person I replied to stated a nation taking actions off the table "will inevitably become subservient to a despotic regime". As a response, I pointed to a country that many would call "a despotic regime" who seems to operate with at least some consideration towards the ethics of war even if that is du…

Maybe I'm slow , but how is that relevant to the point? Can you expand? Am I understand is that defense is important because sooner or later someone else may choose aggression. You might put your life savings on the street in front of your house for a day or two without someone stealing it, but sooner or later someone unscrupulous is likely to come along based on the evidence we have

Post by slg » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 2:55 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #328

slg wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nuking Kyiv and Lviv would probably force Ukraine to surrender. Or if we want to take nuclear options off the table because Russia values infrastructure, they aren't attacking population centers with bioweapons. >This is the real constraint. There is still the credible threat of being economically isolated by America, Europe, China and India. (Neither China nor India wants the normalisation of nuclear bombardment no…

> if we want to take nuclear options off the table because Russia values infrastructure Putin doesn't care about infrastructure in Kyiv. He wants the natural gas and resources in the east. A nuked rump Ukraine isn't a threat to his power. > why would this pressure work for nuclear weapons and not this new military tech? Because the normalisation of nuclear weapons has global consequences in a way conventional warfare…