War

AI's new military role rests on a false appearance of credibility.

Are we justified in drawing lots and calling numbers?

On what can we ground the rules of engagement?

Defining the purpose of aid is the first step to debating a limit.

Which strategy produces a safer world?

How should we weigh the potential consequences of our decision?

On what grounds could the use be justified?

Might Carl Schmitt be the key to deciphering Russia's politics?

Should we entrust robot soldiers with the freedom to search-and-destroy?

At what point do acts of aggression violate the norms of permissible wartime conduct?

How might the prospect of nuclear war change our bearing in regard to that final hour?

Cognitive biases make it easy to lose sight of our goal in risk assessment.

Why should military action aimed at our enemies' top brass be a stratagem that remains off the table?

How should we evaluate alternative strategies of engagement when the levels of uncertainty and risk remain so high?

A history of intervention in pro-Soviet regimes in the West undermines the US's claim to the moral high ground.

Should Big Tech intervene even if their actions threaten foreseeable harm to innocent bystanders?

Does Big Tech have a responsibility to get involved?

It is either hubris or naivete that leads us to think that we can fight others' battles for them.

How did we get here? Who is to blame? What could we have done differently? Are there any useful takeaways from the mess we find ourselves in?

There may never be a right time to withdraw, but that doesn't mean we can walk away clean.