Maybe so, but could you please not post ranty name-calling comments to HN? It's against the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

It's easy to find examples of how to make this sort of argument civilly and substantively; you replied to one.

> This peacenik virtue signaling bullshit is the naive privilege of spoiled children. "I want my freedom, but I don't want my hands to get dirty".

Deliberately belittling people who conscientiously object to having their labor used for the purpose of war making is dangerous. I'm very glad that Young Americans (at the time) protested the Vietnam War making it clear to the US Military that they couldn't willy-nilly start wars whenever they want to.

You cannot, and should not, be forcing people to do what they do not want. If you want to convince others of the benefits of having a superior armed forces, belittling them as spoiled children is not the way to do so.

> I'm very glad that Young Americans (at the time) protested the Vietnam War making it clear to the US Military that they couldn't willy-nilly start wars whenever they want to.

As am I. I'm not criticizing war protest. I'm criticizing not contributing to military technology.

> You cannot, and should not, be forcing people to do what they do not want.

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. I'm criticizing them for making their choice. They remain free to make it.

One would think that maintaining liberal, Enlightenment values would require electing people who actually support those values.

Sure. But everything in the real world is about tradeoffs. It's not "is everything perfect" its "what are our alternatives?" and our alternatives are Russia and China. Which represent a substantial decline in enlightenment values.

How much collaboration from private tech does the US military need to maintain global dominance? Where does this line of reasoning end? How much of your day, specifically, should you instead be spending supporting the armed forces?

There's no reason to make that calculation. The military does it for us, and then they offer to pay people to do the work they deem important. My point is that refusing to do that work out of some sense of principle is misguided, naive, and wrong.

Of course there's a need to make that calculation. The military's calculation is based on people's willingness and reluctance to work for them, and they offer to pay because they have to. The military would be happy to have you work for them for free, if you think what they do is so important.

Your point is that working with the military is good, because being ruled by China would be worse than the current situation. So the moral benefit you're proposing extends insofar as we prevent China from taking over the US. How much do you think Silicon Valley needs to cooperate with the military to prevent replacement by the Chinese?

> So the moral benefit you're proposing extends insofar as we prevent China from taking over the US. How much do you think Silicon Valley needs to cooperate with the military to prevent replacement by the Chinese?

A lot. Whether or not we like it, automation, AI and autonomous weapons are going to become a huge part of the modern battlefield. Silicon Valley needs to be a big part of that process. If you abdicate your role in technology like this, you don't just make it go away. All you do is cede control of it to someone who is willing to do it. Who doesn't share your sense of morality. How, exactly, is that better?

I see. Did you read the article?