> I'll do nuclear non-proliferation work all day, but won't touch a system that can kill another human unless we are at war. Humans are really, really good at killing one another -- we don't need to get better at that.

I don't think you can stop humans from getting better at killing each other. So the real question is: who should have the best killing systems? If the answer is "not the US," then who will it be?

It is essential that we find a way to stop humans from getting better at killing one another. If killing-technology advances to the point that one person can kill seven billion, we will have a major problem on our hands.

What is necessary is to have sufficient distributed killing-capacity to prevent any one actor from gaining outsized power over everyone else. If people collectively agree that WMD are bad, and are willing to go to conventional war to stop everyone else from developing WMD, there may be a WMD-free equilibrium.

> If killing-technology advances to the point that one person can kill seven billion, we will have a major problem on our hands.

Don't we already have the technology for that? I see no technical reason that prevents totally automating the execution of launch commands for existing nuclear arsenals (i.e. building literal, not figurative, nuclear button).

The issue is that academics in other countries do not have qualms like yours, which could eventually give those countries a destabilizing competitive advantage. From the OP:

> America’s adversaries understand this. China is tightly integrating its defense establishment with startups, companies, and academia in “military-civilian fusion.” Russia, Iran, and North Korea have also fused those activities.

So the question is: will it be an improvement over the current status quo if one or more of those countries gains military edge over the US? Will things be better if, say, the US lacks the military technology to repulse a conventional invasion of Taiwan by the PRC, because Chinese scientists developed better stealth coatings or better missile seekers, while the American ones said "I'd rather not"?

> Don't we already have the technology for that?

Some would argue that we have a major problem on our hands ;).

Regarding, "I'd rather not", the point is well-taken. I'm probabilistically alive because my grandfather, who had orders to ship out the time of Japan's surrender, did not participate in an invasion of Japan. I live in a country whose political system endures in part because of the dedicated active service of more than a million citizens and in part because of the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of lives to the cause.

When I say, "I'd rather not." I hope to lead by example. The weapons we have are sufficient to cause the end of days, which seems like enough. I don't mind if the tools I build have some military use -- making a better bandage keeps anyone who happens to be leaking blood alive. I do mind if the primary purpose of my work has lethality in mind.

I'm a precision-measurement experimental physicist, and the thing we do is optimize. I believe it would be corrosive to my soul if the goal of my daily optimization is the death of another person -- a person with a mother, a father, friends, loved ones, and perhaps children. So long as the world is at peace (and one can readily argue that it is not, or that battles are won before they are fought), I will not make weapons. If I have to make weapons, they will be good ones.

"Once upon a time, in the very earliest days of interplanetary exploration, as unarmed human vessel was set upon by a warship from the planet Kzin-home of the fiercest warriors in Known Space. This was a fatal mistake for the Kzinti, of course; they learned the hard way that the reason humanity had decided to study war no more was that humans were so very, very, good at it." -- from the jacket of the anthology 'Man-Kzin Wars'.

Or, to draw an idea from the cultural history of China:

"Weapons are instruments of fear; they are not a wise man's tools.

He uses them only when he has no choice.

Peace and quiet are dear to his heart.

And victory no cause for rejoicing.

If you rejoice in victory, then you delight in killing;

If you delight in killing, you cannot fulfill yourself."

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 31 (https://www.wussu.com/laotzu/laotzu31.html)

Current events such as the US-China trade war, rising inequality between the haves and have-nots, the upcoming financial crisis, the increasing military strength of China (with "military-civil fusion") and its emergence as a superpower, decreasing respect for the rule of law from politicians, and the polarisation between the left and nationalist right parties strongly parallel the buildup in the 1930s preceding World War II.

You say it would be corrosive to your soul to optimise death of currently living human beings. However, if those humans were trying to wipe out your mother, father, friends, loved ones, children and perhaps the rest of the world, by optimising their death you would be optimising the chance of the human race to survive. From that perspective, you would not delight in killing, but delight in preserving the peace and quiet which could only be achieved by cutting out the cancerous tumor which threatens the whole body of humanity.

Then again, who's the cancerous tumor here - the West or the East?

Perhaps it would help if we stopped dubbing other people as cancerous tumors?

I was reading about the decisions behind the nuclear bombings of Japanese cities near the end of WWII.

I wonder how it felt being a physicist that contributed to the Manhattan Project after those droppings.

By the way, the Wikipedia pages are in interesting study in how to downplay certain... aspects.

The issue there is that declaring conventional war on someone who is making WMD's means you losing really quickly. So you need WMD's to ensure you can stand against them. And therein lies the entire history of military development. You can't enforce anything without force. And he who has the most force has the advantage.

Declaring conventional war on someone who has WMDs, especially if they have a lot of them, is a fool's game. Blocking them from making them, if they don't already have them, is a different story.

The US and its coalition partners went to conventional war to stop Iraq from developing WMD. How well did that work out? WMD development is mostly done in secret so we'll usually never have hard evidence of what any country is doing. It's just a totally unrealistic proposal.

This was claimed for propaganda purposes and never substantiated, afaik.

Exactly! Which is precisely why ISL’s proposal would never work in the real world. Countries would falsely claim that their enemies were secretly building WMDs.

Unfortunately the US has a long history of giving the best killing systems to randomers (in many cases as a self sustaining racket, which is horrifying). The net result has not been great at all. If the parents criteria of pure defense was applied then the world including the people of the US would be much better off.

Have you ever heard of the movie "The Mouse that Roared"?

It looks like a great story. I wish movies these days were as imaginative or risky.

Speaking of the "antithesis of science":

> I was heartbroken the day I saw a citation of my work in a military application, as it was never the intent of the work

Isn't a cornerstone of scientific research that you never know what fruitful unrelated applications could be created by your work? The scientific community is collaborative, multidisciplinary, etc.- you should be happy your work contributed to progress.

> I'll do nuclear non-proliferation work all day

Even though full non-proliferation will likely contribute to more war?

> Humans are really, really good at killing one another -- we don't need to get better at that.

Shouldn't we ALWAYS strive to get better at everything? Isn't that the point of scientific research?

> unless we are at war

Well, we are at war. In 2018, Congress identified 7 countries that we are officially in conflict with. And if you have a broader definition of war, the number is much higher.

> Defense projects are classified, and classification is the antithesis of science.

Not all defense projects are classified.

Should I be happy that someone researching weapons systems that might be pointed at me found my work useful? That's a strange definition of progress.

It is far from proven that a world without nuclear weapons is necessarily a world with more war.

We should not strive to get better at everything. Improving our ability to cause one another pain for its own end, for example, is cruel and inhuman. To me, the point of scientific research is a deeper understanding of Nature.

Agreed that the United States is actively engaged in armed conflict, but the integrity of our nation is arguably facing greater threats from within; a difficulty we must find our way through together.

Agreed that not all defense projects are classified -- that was a simplification. Many of the projects for which my skills are suited are classified. I'm perfectly happy accepting DARPA or similar funds for peaceful research.

> Shouldn't we ALWAYS strive to get better at everything? Isn't that the point of scientific research?

…no?

Think it through. How would you "no" that?

Step 1. Obtain bigger stick.

Offensive capabilities aren't linearly related with human death and suffering. It's not even clear whether the relationship is positive or negative.[0] Have you considered the possibility that your work could potentially create a net-benefit to humanity by keeping world powers in a state of Nash-equilibrium/MAD?

[0]: https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2018/09/Bubble-and-lines-...

Yep, sure is possible. But all it takes is one unstable leader, or the failing of governmental structures designed to promote stability, or a few flaky sensors erroneously claiming a nuclear attack, and the meta-stability of MAD can tunnel to the true potential minimum, where nobody can wage war because we're all dead.

The modern world is unaware of how terrible major wars and nuclear weapons can be, because we are now generations removed from the experience. I fear that we are poised to re-learn some of those lessons.

Circling back: Yep, sure is possible, but I'm not going to work on weapons systems unless we are at war. I'd rather work on the education and science needed to help everyone respect one another and lead healthier lives. I've only got one life and don't want to spend it building systems that might end others' lives more-efficiently.

Keep in mind that the existence of lots of skilled people who are willing to contribute to serious war efforts, but who'd rather do other things most of the time, has some deterrent effect on foreign countries--there is an incentive to avoid doing something bad enough that it "wakes up the sleeping giant". I'd reserve criticism for the few people who aren't willing to help even in nightmare scenarios.

I think its more about what do you want to leave behind you ....sure, a given defense technical discovery or innovation may, in the right circumstances, used by the right people, prevent suffering, but, if your goal is to help others it seems a lot more direct to be a teacher, or a doctor, etc.

You might find this thread insightful https://twitter.com/yonatanzunger/status/975545527973462016

In bullet 1, you say that you were heartbroken to see a citation in a defense project.

In bullet 2, you say that classification is the antithesis of science because projects are classified (read: not published)

But in Bullet 1, somebody cited you in an unclassified paper, and also once you publish you obviously don't get to control who uses your ideas or for what purpose short of a patent.

These seem mutually exclusive, but I might be misunderstanding.

> ... in an unclassified paper

Or a declassified paper. (Not everything that starts behind the classification wall, stays behind the classification wall... but neither does everything behind the classification wall come forward in any reasonable timeframe.)

True! But things do get released.

Government and corporations are full of compromise. Stay in a school related environment for as long as possible if your ideals are the most important aspect of your career search.

Most corporate jobs don’t involve killing people, while many jobs for physicists at defence contractors do.

Many more people die for too much sugar or cigarettes than for defense projects...

I’d still also not work for a cigarette company or a soda drink company. Your point?