RE: LeoThread 2026-03-01 21-48

This hits the core issue more than any argument over specific wording

The central question is whether democracy is trusted: should the military be controlled by elected leaders or by corporate executives? Phrases from the latter like "you cannot target innocent civilians" become moral minefields that turn cultural differences into sweeping control

Who counts as a civilian? What makes someone innocent? What distinguishes a "target" from collateral damage? Existing law and policy offer clear answers, but unelected corporations focused on profit and PR will often answer differently

Imagine a missile manufacturer trying to enforce a rule that its product cannot be used against innocent civilians and cutting access if elected leaders break that rule. Sounds good, but beyond the value-judgment issues there are other questions:

• What classified or other information would the corporation receive to make those determinations, and how much leverage would that create?

• If a President merely threatens a dictator with certain weapon use, does the threat lose credibility because corporate executives might cut off supply? Would the threat trigger the cutoff? How would those conclusions change if current corporate leaders favored the dictator or opposed the President?

• At what confidence level would a cutoff occur, both on paper and in practice?

Framing this as an AI debate does not change the underlying calculus. The same problems arise with surveillance systems or autonomous weapons. Assertions that corporations will provide "cutouts" for defensive autonomous use immediately raise further issues: what is "autonomous"? what is "defensive"? What about defending an asset during offensive operations or positioning a carrier off the coast of a nation that views that as aggression?

The American experiment must remain ongoing, with people retaining the right to elect and remove those who make these decisions rather than outsourcing real levers of power to billionaires, corporations, and their shadow advisors. That is why the "bro just agree the AI won't be involved in autonomous weapons or mass surveillance why can't you agree it is so simple please bro" stance is untenable for the United States