I guess that your opinion. The point is when you change the variables you change the outcome and it won't magically be for the better, especially since there's little precedence. It's pointless to loose karma over this on HN though when I can and regularly do talk about it with actual aerospace engineers.
I don't see any problem in considering the good and bad of any technology, its implementation and its effects. I would say it's good engineering practice if anything.
More than anything I think premature, excessive and/or misguided credit is damaging to engineering and entrepreneurship. It shifts the focus from knowledge and creativity to adoration and exceptionalism. Quite opposite the mindset of Musk himself.
If those "microwave weapons" end up enabling the killing of millions of people (like e.g. nuclear weapons can wipe out the whole earth), then those left will be right to say:
"Hmm, maybe we were better off without microwave technology after all. In fact, just because we can make something, probably doesn't mean that we should make it".
Sure, it's always a concern. Just because we make something doesn't mean that we should use it. So you've already got that ethical dilemma covered on the basis of usage, if not invention.
On the other hand, if you don't develop technology, you'll never know if it will be used for good, and you'll never see the advantages if it is. And failing to develop something does nothing to prevent someone else from developing it later. If something is possible, you want to be the one making it possible, not the one cowering in fear while someone else forges on ahead.
I will certainly concede that there are scenarios where it works out to be for the worse. However I don't believe that any of those scenarios involve military weapon platforms. I am however more than happy to hear arguments as to why I am wrong.
