3 ms·

No one would disagree with: "maintaining the status quo is definitely better than making things worse". But more debatable is: "Depriving the world's militarie

No one would disagree with: "maintaining the status quo is definitely better than making things worse". But more debatable is: "Depriving the world's militaries of research brains isn't going to prevent or lessen violence". Examples: - smarter bombs that pinpoint their targets more accurately, thus reducing collateral damage. - Better, lighter armor that increases survivability against roadside bombs, allowing vehicles to safely patrol and keep an area peaceful. - Better battlefield medical tools like high tech "skin" to wrap over wounds and save soldiers as well as civilians. - Take down a group's command and control electronics, forcing them to retreat without a shot fired. We can be clever and surgical in taking out insurgencies which are the vast majority of the conflicts in the world, or just use massive, generalized brute force as has been done for thousands of years with the obvious ramifications. There's plenty of great reasons to support military research, don't you think?

mcguire 11y ago
All four of those examples have the side effect of making military action more appealing. I notice you did not include "monitoring communications to successfully identify target insurgents (Really, insurgencies?)", which might actually reduce "unnecessary" violence.
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  But there are times when you have to take military action. Someone who is a total pacifist may disagree; that is their right. But the majority does still support the idea. Do you not agree that if we have to take out some baddies, at least we should strive for minimum collateral damage?
  - robin_reala 11y ago
    The use of the word ’baddies’ infantilises your comment to the point of uselessness.
  - Kristine1975 11y ago
    >collateral damage You keep using that euphemism. Why is it so hard to say "killed civilians"? (or "murdered civilians" if you subscribe to Tucholsky's quote)
    - adenadel 11y ago
      To be fair, collateral damage also refers to property damage as well.
      - jstnjosepht 11y ago
        "murdered buildings and infrastructure"
  - Xylakant 11y ago
    Development of drone technology certainly made military action more appealing, one could even take the stance that it wouldn't be possible without in quite some operating theaters (think Pakistan). I don't subscribe to the belief that making drone strikes possible reduced the number of civilian casualties. It's certainly much more nuanced than black and white, but making it easier to perform certain types of military operations has proven to have unintended side effects.
  - mcguire 11y ago
    I am not a pacifist. In fact, I am an American and I am a misanthrope, so I have many positions that make it difficult to be anti-people-death. Plus, of course, I have too many friends and family members who have been in the military, so 'better them than us' is a good argument. On the one hand, a drone with a Hellfire is arguably better than carpet bombing a village. On the other, though, if our options were limited to carpet bombing, there's probably quite a few people who wouldn't be dead over the last decade. But on the third, if we can avoid friendly deaths and convincingly call anyone who is killed a 'baddie', I'm not sure there is a downside either way.

mcguire 11y ago

All four of those examples have the side effect of making military action more appealing. I notice you did not include "monitoring communications to successfully identify target insurgents (Really, insurgencies?)", which might actually reduce "unnecessary" violence.

blisterpeanuts 11y ago
But there are times when you have to take military action. Someone who is a total pacifist may disagree; that is their right. But the majority does still support the idea. Do you not agree that if we have to take out some baddies, at least we should strive for minimum collateral damage?
- robin_reala 11y ago
  The use of the word ’baddies’ infantilises your comment to the point of uselessness.
- Kristine1975 11y ago
  >collateral damage You keep using that euphemism. Why is it so hard to say "killed civilians"? (or "murdered civilians" if you subscribe to Tucholsky's quote)
  - adenadel 11y ago
    To be fair, collateral damage also refers to property damage as well.
    - jstnjosepht 11y ago
      "murdered buildings and infrastructure"
- Xylakant 11y ago
  Development of drone technology certainly made military action more appealing, one could even take the stance that it wouldn't be possible without in quite some operating theaters (think Pakistan). I don't subscribe to the belief that making drone strikes possible reduced the number of civilian casualties. It's certainly much more nuanced than black and white, but making it easier to perform certain types of military operations has proven to have unintended side effects.
- mcguire 11y ago
  I am not a pacifist. In fact, I am an American and I am a misanthrope, so I have many positions that make it difficult to be anti-people-death. Plus, of course, I have too many friends and family members who have been in the military, so 'better them than us' is a good argument. On the one hand, a drone with a Hellfire is arguably better than carpet bombing a village. On the other, though, if our options were limited to carpet bombing, there's probably quite a few people who wouldn't be dead over the last decade. But on the third, if we can avoid friendly deaths and convincingly call anyone who is killed a 'baddie', I'm not sure there is a downside either way.