Affordances of Good vs Evil

The role of open source must be examined in war. Is open source military technology good, or does it help the enemy? Open access means open access to both sides - and would that actually help? Clearly we would be helping the enemy, and simple logic says that we should not aid the enemy directly. If we don't work open source (ie, eliminating all kinds of coordination and competitive waste) - we are losing out on efficiencies, exchanging energy required for secrecy for actual progress. Does this loss of efficiency make up for the greater advantage on the battlefield? And can open source be maintained, by including certain specific principles of open collaboration amongst the good side? And can even the good energy and good results embodied in open source convert the other side to walk over to the good side? Divergent thinking here clearly says yes. Let's take a look at some affordances and how tech development works to examine clear opportunities, and drawbacks, of open source military technology which can be used by both sides.

If we talk about 'dual use' - then this development can be open source for both sides, and it can benefit both sides, while not disadvantaging the good side. There are many technologies that are already 'open source' - or that the adversary already uses from their own tech set and would not be interested in switching over.

Say we develop an open technology, the question is - what is the risk of the adversary adopting it? If the technology is new, then the adversary may adopt it. If the technology is old and the adversary already produces that technology, then the case for the adversary adopting it is low. However, any innovation - better, faster, cheaper, stronger - can likely be adopted. In practice, if an entire established industry already exists, that means that the entire industry would have to switch over. This would take a decade, as monopolies like to exist until forced out of existence.

The quick solution to the above is to develop deep technology - paradigm shifts which:

• Eliminate the funding base of the adversary. For example, hydrogen energy systems and engines may uproot 1/6 of Russian GDP or 1/3 of its government revenue [1] if they eliminate the oil and gas base of Russia

Deep technology refers to paradigm shifts in the economy. Such a paradigm shift may be technical or social innovation:

• Social innovation - democracy-branded dual use technologies which adversaries will be less likely to adopt because of pride in their own technology, which would be an admission that democratic collaboration is a superior method for economic progress. For example, technology is developed for swarm-based, distributed military production. Ie, leveraging large masses of private citizens who care - in swarm builds of military technology. It may be reasoned that 'democratic individuals' are more likely to collaborate as such than fascist individuals, thus pursuing Swarm builds of existing technology may be a good idea. Existing technology means that enemy infiltration into this ecosystem does not matter - because the technology already exists and the only innovation is 'collaborative builds' - in which fascist individuals would probably be less likely to get engaged in. Thus, an action point of mass mobilization of swarm builds based on open technology may be a safe route to pursue for military support of Ukraine.
• Tec