Live data from Hacker News

Where things stand with the Department of War

anthropic.com

811–820 of 862 posts

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#811
post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know of any instance where modern warmongers fight wars based on subjective grounds. They all have “objectively true” reasons.

Imagine you are stranded in your home with all your loved ones, and you get a call from your "warmonger" president and the matter is urgent; he says "We have received intel regarding a enemy plan to bomb your house in 30 mins. This report is only x% reliable, but we have the exact location of the enemy and we have birds in air that can hit them in 5 mins. This might escalate into a larger conflict, Do you want us to…

100 is my answer. Exactly my question to you:

What is your percentage to say no lets do not take actions. Because again; with this perspective every single action is legitimate. There is a chance for everything. If there is a weapon that can kill every human on the planet, every country will race to invent it because every country will try to invent it. Every action is valid. Every weapon development is okey, because if you dont, others will. You can kill everyone, because everyone might eventually try to kill you, there is always a chance.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#812

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not. You'll notice that I used the terms correctly. The government in Taipei claims all of mainland China and The island of Taiwan are united and a single state. As does the government in Beijing.

So you think North and South Korea are the same country? If not, which is the rightful country and which is the rebel? They both claim the same territory and that the other is illegitimate. Do you think India and Pakistan are the same country? Or at least parts? There's a lot of disputed territories there. Or do you believe Palestine is independent from Israel? They sure claim independence and Israel claims it's thei…

  > So you think North and South Korea are the same country? If not, which is the rightful country and which is the rebel? They both claim the same territory and that the other is illegitimate.
I know not enough about the conflict to declare which side is more justified.

  > Do you think India and Pakistan are the same country? Or at least parts? There's a lot of disputed territories there.
Again, I know too little about the conflict.

  > Or do you believe Palestine is independent from Israel? They sure claim independence and Israel claims it's theirs.
The Arab citizens of the holy land did not declare a state when the former ruling party (the Brits) left, the Jews did declare a state. The Arabs even rejected the UN partition plan and decided that the fate of the area would be determined by war instead. Which they lost, and though they had some territory after the war they _still_ did not declare a state on that land. Only 15 years later did they form a government and an identity, and yet still did not declare a state. Only after the Israelis conquered the lands in yet another war, and then almost thirty years after that, did they declare a state with provisional borders. And they have rejected every final borders proposition made to them since. And during that entire time, they have been murdering civilians, both Jews and those who support peace with the Jews.

So yes, clearly in Area A the Palestinians have limited sovereignty - limited only because they consistently refuse all attempts to provide them more sovereignty.

  > Or what about the USA? The British sure thought it was theirs for a long time. Should France not have gotten involved in all of that?
Perhaps the French should not have gotten involved. I can imagine an alternate history where the British rule over the North American continent. The great result of the American Revolution wasn't the independent United States. The great result of the American Revolution was the implementation of a government based upon secular values and equality for all before the law. And even with the tools in place to implement that government, it still took almost two hundred years to enshrine those values into society.

And now, a mere two generations later, people have forgotten how hard the Americans worked to build that society and they are willing - active even - to discard it because of the few remaining minor deviations from perfection.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#813
post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally yes. If you justify harming others out of nowhere by ‘sabotaging your own existence’ then yes. ‘Sabotaging your own existence’ is a magic sentence that can justify everything. Israel can kill children more than any other nation in the world, and justify it by ‘not sabotaging their own existence’ Anyone can do anything with this perspective. This is the exact point gere. Pull yourself back, if you are about…

Sure, any one can say anything. But I am not referring to that. I am talking about a case where it is objectively true. But I think that is a question that anyone would rather not consider. The issue is that if you don't consider that question, and jump into discussion or actions, in general just have an "outrage", then it would be very hard to take you seriously.

What is objective; does iraq having chemical weapons objective for example?

Or childrens died because of invasion is more objective?

Which one?

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you think North and South Korea are the same country? If not, which is the rightful country and which is the rebel? They both claim the same territory and that the other is illegitimate. Do you think India and Pakistan are the same country? Or at least parts? There's a lot of disputed territories there. Or do you believe Palestine is independent from Israel? They sure claim independence and Israel claims it's thei…

> So you think North and South Korea are the same country? If not, which is the rightful country and which is the rebel? They both claim the same territory and that the other is illegitimate. I know not enough about the conflict to declare which side is more justified. > Do you think India and Pakistan are the same country? Or at least parts? There's a lot of disputed territories there. Again, I know too little about…

  >  I know not enough about the conflict to declare which side is more justified.
That was never the question at hand and I think illustrates why this discussion is pointless. You're unwilling to engage in a meaningful way, so bye.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#815
post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're confusing lazy cynicism with realism. Patrick Bateman is a fictional character . The vast, vast majority of people, including even most soldiers, and definitely pretty much all businesspeople, no matter how unscrupulous, do not have the capacity to violently murder a person they know and harbor no ill will towards with their own hands on short notice.

maybe they should make the person with the codes black. I think several cold-war presidents probably wouldn't have a problem with that

The whole damn point behind the idea is to achieve the exact opposite. Make it someone, through whatever criteria, whom the president will have a problem killing, so he'll only do it under the most extreme circumstances.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#816

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Negotiations did halt it. Then Trump went back on the deal. There's reports Iran agreed to limit themselves to only medical grade centrifuges as recently as last week. And no, Iran does not have weapons capability to reach the US, period. They fundamentally did not pose an imminent threat to the United States. A threat to American strategic goals is not an imminent threat to the American people.

Negotiations halted Iran's nuclear program for, as per words of the treaty, "10 to 15 years". That was in 2016. If that treaty were not torn up, then Iran would be allowed to unveil their nuclear weapon in January 16, 2026. Yes, two months ago.

Well now you're not making any sense.

Is your claim that the deal was not preventing Iran from developing a nuke? Then why does the existence of the agreement matter either way?

Are you saying Iran would magically produce a nuke the very day the deal expired? Then why don't they have one today?

How does ending the agreement make it harder for Iran to get a nuke? How does "tearing it up" prevent anything that the agreement itself wasn't preventing?

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#817
post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think regarding it as a "demonstration" is accurate either. Nuclear bombs appear as uniquely horrifying and requiring special justification only in hindsight. Back then, it was just another type of bomb. The thought process behind dropping it was simply "let's hit them as hard as we can until they surrender".

> Nuclear bombs appear as uniquely horrifying and requiring special justification only in hindsight. Back then, it was just another type of bomb. I disagree slightly with that take. Decisionmakers knew that those singular bombs were gonna glass an entire city each, and previously almost untouched targets were selected to better show and observe the effect. If you're at a point where you can afford to slash the primar…

> previously almost untouched targets were selected to better show and observe the effect.

I read that this was not the primary motivation; rather, those cities were basically on the top of the "list of industrial centers we didn't get around to bombing conventionally yet, but were going to do next".

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#818
post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

That's cherry-picking. The Iranians said things, Trump said some other things, and your comment chooses to selectively believe some things the Iranians said (that their nuclear program wasn't entirely dismantled, in contradiction to Trump's claims) but not others (that they weren't pursuing nuclear weapons and the late Khamenei considered them immoral). It's now believed Israel was planning to kill Khamenei regardles…

I don't care what Trump says. I care what the Iranians say. Here is an Iranian, Persian language interview with Ali Motahari, deputy speaker of the Iranian parliament:

https://www.iranintl.com/202204244448

He says:

  >از همان ابتدا که وارد فعالیت هسته ای شدیم هدفمان ساخت بمب و تقویت قوای بازدارنده بود، اما نتوانستیم محرمانه بودن این مساله را حفظ کنیم
In English:

  > From the very beginning when we entered nuclear activity, our goal was to build a bomb and strengthen deterrence, but we were unable to maintain the secrecy of this issue

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#819
post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's cherry-picking. The Iranians said things, Trump said some other things, and your comment chooses to selectively believe some things the Iranians said (that their nuclear program wasn't entirely dismantled, in contradiction to Trump's claims) but not others (that they weren't pursuing nuclear weapons and the late Khamenei considered them immoral). It's now believed Israel was planning to kill Khamenei regardles…

I don't care what Trump says. I care what the Iranians say. Here is an Iranian, Persian language interview with Ali Motahari, deputy speaker of the Iranian parliament: https://www.iranintl.com/202204244448 He says: >از همان ابتدا که وارد فعالیت هسته ای شدیم هدفمان ساخت بمب و تقویت قوای بازدارنده بود، اما نتوانستیم محرمانه بودن این مساله را حفظ کنیم In English: > From the very beginning when we entered nuclear activit…

Like I said, you're cherry-picking. You believe some of what the Iranians say, and not the rest. You believe some of what Trump says, but not the rest.

And you do care what Trump says, since you're buying his bogus, self-contradicting justification for going to war with Iran.

Iran wasn't a threat to the US.

Edit: that 2022 interview you quoted from an Iranian not affiliated to any nuclear program or knowledgeable about it, and which later recanted/clarified it, has problems to say the least. Another example of cherry-picking. I'm not surprised it has since been amplified by Trump (a person whose opinion you don't care about) and by various Israeli news outlets.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#820
post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are so many inference providers not working for Department of War. Even Alibaba and sure China has lots of issues but they are not bombing anyone now if that's your first priority. Or else, smaller US / European / Asian companies with pure civilian focus. SOTA open weights models they serve are perfectly suitable for coding and chat. I run a local Qwen3.5-122B-A10B-NVFP4 instance and it writes entire Android ap…

Sorry for the off-topic but what hardware are you running Qwen3.5-122B-A10B-NVFP4 on? Is it physically local or just self-administered? Thanks in advance.

I have an NVIDIA Thor Dev Kit, a somewhat less known cousin of DGX Spark.
Post reply on HN