Dear reader, today I pose a question to you. We live in a world of technological wonders, and as time continues to press forward, we are met with amazing new advancements. Recently, I was able to read an article detailing the progress made on the Boom supersonic jet, a topic I have written previously about. Unfortunately, the article also specified that the jets would be sponsored to the tune of 60 million dollars. Now, you may be asking yourself, dear reader, “why would a large sponsorship be bad?” Well, the answer comes in the name of the sponsor: The U.S. Air Force.
Boom Supersonic announced a three-year, $60 million investment by the US Air Force that will aid in the development of its commercial Overture jet. In addition, the company would also be using this money to develop military versions for the Air Force. This is, of course, one of the hundreds of examples of the militarisation of technology. Over the past 100 years, the United States and other countries of power, have exploited the idea of progress, and used it for their countries’ defensive, offensive or logistical needs. Now, in this case, the idea of a militarized supersonic jet does not seem threatening as the air force seems to only want it for executive transport and surveillance, however, this has not been the case for past advancements. Progress like the airplane has led to offensive technology such as fighter jets and bombers, advancements in chemistry has led to the threat of nuclear warfare, and even the invention of the computer has led to the threat of full technological warfare. Ultimately, no matter how you look at it, if the technology has positive potential, there is the threat that governments will use it negatively.
But is this bad? Remember, dear reader, my task is to ask questions with you, consider every angle of the argument. The concept I present to you now is that of mutually assured destruction. Most commonly associated with the cold war, mutually assured destruction simply states that if two sides are tempted to use weapons of equal strength, they will ultimately wipe each other out. Remember, dear reader, the U.S. is not the only country with technology fostered in an age of advancement and discovery. We are not the only ones who need to lay down our arms to make a world that is truly brighter. But should we be the first? Should we be the bigger person and show the world that we hope to see a day when there is no conflict? Or should we wait for others to do so, so that we may be assured that we shall not face destruction in the wake of our own hubris? That is the question I pose to you, dear reader. I urge you to consider this question and its ramifications and act on your opinions. As always, dear reader, I ask you to remember my motto.
There is always the chance of a better tomorrow. What can you do to make it a reality?