> "How do you choose when to "stop" researching better weapons? And how do you define "enough"? Did we have "enough" in the 1600s? How about the 1800s? Or the early 1900s?"
I would say around the 1970s. At that stage, with the maturity of ICBMs, it seems that we would have the weapons to wipe out the human race in less than a day. How much quicker at killing each other do you want us to be?
> "If you argue that everyone should agree to stop research, then who gets to decide when to stop? The country with the most advanced weapons?"
Yes, the country with the most advanced weaponry needs to be the country that leads the process to slow down the rate of weapon research. The USA leads the world in military spending by quite a way, they could easily slow down without risking their geopolitical position, and if they did so with enough conviction they could cause a economic downturn in military equipment companies, slowing down progress further.
> "Finally, with better technology come more precise weapons. Now, we've seen that drones aren't really as "precise" as expected in practice, but they are leaps and bounds less destructive than older tech. We can only improve if we continue researching."
What we're almost certainly going to see is war that can be conducted remotely. You see the start of it with piloted drones, but this is just the start. When war can be conducted with minimal human involvement in the military, do you think this is going make it easier or harder for a government to decide to go to war?
> I would say around the 1970s. At that stage, with the maturity of ICBMs, it seems that we would have the weapons to wipe out the human race in less than a day.
Nuclear bombs were developed in the 40s. Why not stop there?
> The USA leads the world in military spending by quite a way, they could easily slow down without risking their geopolitical position
Slowing down is not the same as stopping, my friend. My argument is against those who claim that weapons research is categorically wrong and must stop. Trust me, I have seen many people who hold this view in the US.
But let's assume that the US eases the world into stopping completely. From a game theoretic standpoint, can you ever truly ensure that all countries have ceased weapons research? The answer is simply no. Heck, we couldn't even manage to do that with nuclear disarmament: Iran, Israel, Pakistan, Libya, and NK have all illegally (and covertly) developed nuclear weapons at one point or another.
> When war can be conducted with minimal human involvement in the military, do you think this is going make it easier or harder for a government to decide to go to war?
I'm sure that the rules of engagement and warfare will develop as technology improves. Wars could reach the point where both sides operate unmanned vehicles that are only allowed to target each other. The primary goal would then be to cripple your enemy financially and strategically by destroying and/or disabling their unmanned weapons. In other words, targeting human soldiers/operators could become a war crime.
Don't get me wrong: I am against warfare in general. But I am also a realist, and from what I have read and seen, both history and human nature tell us that war will never stop.
I would say around the 1970s. At that stage, with the maturity of ICBMs, it seems that we would have the weapons to wipe out the human race in less than a day. How much quicker at killing each other do you want us to be?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_m...
> "If you argue that everyone should agree to stop research, then who gets to decide when to stop? The country with the most advanced weapons?"
Yes, the country with the most advanced weaponry needs to be the country that leads the process to slow down the rate of weapon research. The USA leads the world in military spending by quite a way, they could easily slow down without risking their geopolitical position, and if they did so with enough conviction they could cause a economic downturn in military equipment companies, slowing down progress further.
> "Finally, with better technology come more precise weapons. Now, we've seen that drones aren't really as "precise" as expected in practice, but they are leaps and bounds less destructive than older tech. We can only improve if we continue researching."
What we're almost certainly going to see is war that can be conducted remotely. You see the start of it with piloted drones, but this is just the start. When war can be conducted with minimal human involvement in the military, do you think this is going make it easier or harder for a government to decide to go to war?