Taking murder laws into account, I expect a scenario where UFAI researchers tend to turn up dead under mysterious circumstances without any group credibly claiming responsibility would more effectively deter UFAI research than one where a single rogue research institute openly professes an assassination policy.
Taking murder laws into account, I expect a scenario where UFAI researchers tend to turn up dead under mysterious circumstances without any group credibly claiming responsibility would more effectively deter UFAI research than one where a single rogue research institute openly professes an assassination policy.
Do-gooding terrorists relatively frequenly claim responsibility for their actions. For instance, consider the case of Anonymous.
Considering that nearly all terrorists probably think of themselves as do-gooders, I’m not sure how you separate a pool of actual do-gooding terrorists large enough to draw meaningful inferences about it.
Not if their goal is deterrence, which leads me to conclude that they don’t have an assassination program.
Taking murder laws into account, I expect a scenario where UFAI researchers tend to turn up dead under mysterious circumstances without any group credibly claiming responsibility would more effectively deter UFAI research than one where a single rogue research institute openly professes an assassination policy.
Hypothetically speaking.
Do-gooding terrorists relatively frequenly claim responsibility for their actions. For instance, consider the case of Anonymous.
Considering that nearly all terrorists probably think of themselves as do-gooders, I’m not sure how you separate a pool of actual do-gooding terrorists large enough to draw meaningful inferences about it.
Terrorist groups relatively frequenly claim responsibility for their actions.