4 ms·
So we must just accept the fact that military is there to destroy environments and they just don't really care? I expect more from them.
by TomGullen 11y ago
So we must just accept the fact that military is there to destroy environments and they just don't really care? I expect more from them.
- spenczar5 11y agoI think that "of course" is often intended to be descriptive of the way things are, not the way things ought to be.
- Zach_the_Lizard 11y agoDestroying the environment is half of what the military does during wartime. So long as we have militaries, it's hard to see a future where we're not burning cities, bombing bridges and other critical infrastructure, and driving around highly environmentally unfriendly tanks, planes, and warships.
- knowaveragejoe 11y agoWell, to be fair, the military is also the largest and most capable humanitarian organization at the disposal of the world's governments. To think their sole purpose is destruction for the sake of destruction is also a bit of an oversimplification, peacekeeping is a useful role as well.
- usefulcat 11y agoSole purpose, no; primary purpose, definitely.
- dajohnson89 11y agoYet often, military humanitarian missions are in relief to atrocities caused by... other militaries.
- knowaveragejoe 11y agoSure. They're also the first to respond to natural disasters.
- dajohnson89 11y agoThat's more likely to be the National Guard or something like that. Which is military indeed, but not the same type of military that we're talking about here.
- knowaveragejoe 11y agoThe National Guard is as equipped to kill as any element of the regular military. NG units have served in combat roles in pick-a-conflict-in-recent-memory. That's just the US, of course. Pick a natural disaster anywhere in the world - the military(or militaries) of the region are the first to respond and form the basis of the relief efforts thereafter.
- sologoub 11y agoAgree that we should expect more of military and government, but given the fact that a lawsuit was required here and the rampant abuses in the name of national security, we are a long ways off.
- ChrisPebble 11y agoIt's not binary. It's a trade-off that potentially decreases their capabilities and readiness. We might weigh the calculus differently (fewer dead whales) but it's not as simple as saying they don't care.
- wtbob 11y ago> So we must just accept the fact that military is there to destroy environments and they just don't really care? No, the military is there to win wars. When you're in a fight for your life, you don't much care if you trample on a bush, or even break your own bones.