need to form a group to infiltrate these projects and purposefully add holes into the project and allow exfiltration or sabotage. Even just good ole stalling at project management levels can work wonders.
> need to form a group to infiltrate these projects and purposefully add holes into the project and allow exfiltration or sabotage.
Out of curiosity, how do you see that playing out if the U.S. ends up relying on these technologies for its national defense? Would you still be okay with sabotaging them?
I think you're bumping into a more fundamental problem: it's not clear how to enable the military for highly effective defensive missions, without also making it useful for offensive military adventures.
The US will never be involved in a defensive war - geography makes that more or less certain. It's not like we'd ever allow a neighboring nation to join a military alliance with an adversarial force, and so there simply will never be a ground threat. And ocean based threats are also probably obsolete. Send a bunch of carriers and destroyers against any modern nation, and they're going to go pop. This, famously, is exactly what happened in a wargame over a hypothetical war with Iran! [1] So if another country ever attacks the US, it's going to be in the form of a massive nuclear strike. Conventional military forces have been largely relegated to invading non-nuclear nations, or engaging in proxy wars against other nations.
> It's not like we'd ever allow a neighboring nation to join a military alliance with an adversarial force, and so there simply will never be a ground threat.
For what it's worth, I agree with your argument, but I want to point out that the only reason we have the luxury of never allowing a neighboring nation to join alliances is because we have such massive military and technological advantages that aren't being sabotaged from within.
If you are invaded by another country, then you are in a defensive war. Beyond that, countries often will claim they are in defensive wars, when reality is somewhat more ambiguous. Imagine Mexico announced plans to enter into a military alliance with China, which would entail setting up nukes right on the US border. We would invade Mexico approximately 0 seconds later, to ensure such an outcome never happened. The closest we ever came to intentional nuclear war happened over this exact sort of scenario with the Cuban Missile Crisis. Is that defensive?
Let's say we're slightly more subtle with the above. And we 'compel' a region in Mexico to declare their independence and announce an association with the US; we immediately acknowledge their independence. Mexico predictably seeks to shut down said rebellion and invades. We then come to their aid, and start a war against Mexico. Is that defensive? What if said independence seeking was completely organic instead of compelled?
I'm not speaking rhetorically. These questions are difficult, if not impossible to answer. So when I say defensive war, I am speaking literally of the most basic form imaginable. Otherwise, you end up with a million scenarios where the line between defender and invader often come down to one's perspective, instead of some objective qualification. You also risk recreating WW1 where a Bosnian Serb assassinating an Austro-Hungarian royal results in Brits killing Germans over it, and everybody has a plausible claim of behaving defensively, somehow.
I'm always irked to no end when someone omits the context of the cuban missile crisis.
The Cuban Missile Crisis, also known as the October Crisis (Spanish: Crisis de Octubre) in Cuba, or the Caribbean Crisis (Russian: Карибский кризис, romanized: Karibskiy krizis), was a 13-day confrontation between the governments of the United States and the Soviet Union, when American deployments of nuclear missiles in Italy and Turkey were matched by Soviet deployments of nuclear missiles in Cuba.
They were just a response, tit for tat. And were only removed after the USA removed theirs.
Secretly, the United States agreed to dismantle all of the offensive weapons it had deployed to Turkey. (same source)
That aside, what about some conventionally armed IC/SLBM-swarm advising via ADS-B: NONUKE/JUSTTNT/KINETIC/GODSRODS/HELOKITY/WHATSUP/DIPLOMAT/COURIER/MESSAGE/AIRMAIL/DELIVERY/BLOWME/FORFUN?
Let's call it the W69-MK6...maybe deployed by some LongDong YeeHaa...
>The US will never be involved in a defensive war - geography makes that more or less certain.
It should be pretty clear by now that the next actual war won't be boots on ground, it will be fully digital.
The fact that in 2024, a large number of people are going to vote for Trump if he makes it to the ballot is pretty much an indicator that a country like China can use the existing AI technologies to pretty much throw US into a civil war and then take over economically if there is no active defense against it.
Less "offense". America's modern foreign policy doctrine has centered around "strategic control" of key infrastructure and chokepoints. Economical, Informational, Militarily.
“Ask endless questions or engage in long correspondence about orders” - Simple Sabotage Field Manual
Basically lean-in on what management was likely doing anyway. Brainstorming, consensus building, endless meetings, risk aversion, empire building, horse trading, stack ranking etc.
The main thing keeping us free from would be fascist overlords is their own lumbering burocracias. What I fear more than nuclear weapons is effective management science.
Prior to 2016, I wouldn't have blamed you for having this sentiment, as its an indicator that a country has done exceptionally well in developing its defensive/deterrent capability since you grew up without knowing what strife actually looks like.
But now, given that US got massively weaker with Trump being in power for 4 years, and a mentaly ill madman with access to nukes straight up murdering civilians in Ukraine in the name of nationalism, you have to be living under a rock if you don't realize how important defense spending is. If not for US, then for countries that don't have the talent/funding to develop it themselves.
Yes. Even though not illegal (or at least not enough info to claim it was illegal), its pretty obvious that Trump had ties with Russia. Who knows what kind of info he leaked.
US is basically the worlds police already btw. We effectively subsidize R&D for Europe military, and have bases all over the world.
Need a “jia tan”