6 ms·

I think as human consciousness, morality, and our understanding of history have evolved, the question we now ask is “Stability for whom?” Certainly not for Lati

I think as human consciousness, morality, and our understanding of history have evolved, the question we now ask is “Stability for whom?” Certainly not for Latin America during the Cold War, for example. Those who oppose collaborating with the military do so because “America military hegemony” has been used for all kinds of horrors, including recent events like the Iraq War. There’s nothing naive about not wanting to be party to at least half a million civilian casualties and the destabilization of the Middle East. You can make some Real Politik argument about the ends justifying the means, if that’s what you truly believe, but you’ll have to do so more explicitly and account for things like Vietnam and the Iraq War. The reductive abstraction of “stability” you pose know longer holds the same kind of sway it once did among most people.

darawk 9y ago
The fact that violence has happened does not mean that it isn't substantially less than it was. The decrease in rates of violence in modern history is profound, and has been discussed at length, here's a chart: https://ourworldindata.org/slides/war-and-violence/#/6 https://ourworldindata.org/slides/war-and-violence/#/6 Do you see how it goes down since 1950? The fact that the US has been involved in conflicts is not evidence that the US, on balance, creates more violence. Does that mean the US military has made no mistakes? No, of course not. It's made plenty. But the world is a real place where decisions are made by people, and order is imposed by force. Someone is going to impose it. Surveying the landscape of world powers today, i'll take the US over anyone else, any and every day. And that is the only decision that matters. Talking about civilian deaths de-contextualized from the reality of the alternatives is exactly what I mean by 'naive'.
- knuththetruth 9y ago
  >Talking about civilian deaths de-contextualized from the reality of the alternatives is exactly what I mean by 'naive'. The alternative to the Iraq War was not having the Iraq War, which by any sane account was the correct course of action. Half a million people didn’t half to die, but they did, because a lot of people embrace a kind of unquestioning idea of authority as “good,” to which you seem to subscribe. >And that is the only decision that matters. You’re free to define the scope of your ethics however you like, but again, these kind of simplistic appeals are increasingly untenable to most people. And many would probably categorize your adherence to their logic as “naive.”
  - darawk 9y ago
    > The alternative to the Iraq War was not having the Iraq War, which by any sane account was the correct course of action. Half a million people didn’t half to die, but they did You'll get no disagreement from me there. Like I said, and you seem to want to ignore, the US has done bad things. The question isn't "has this entity ever done anything wrong", the question you have to answer is: from the pool of available options, who's best? > You’re free to define the scope of your ethics however you like, but again, these kind of simplistic appeals are increasingly untenable to most people. And many would probably categorize your adherence to their logic as “naive.” It's your appeal that's simplistic. You're taking the world as you'd like it to be, rather than how it actually is. Someone has to have power. And if it's not the people you support, who's it going to be?
    - s73v3r_ 9y ago
      The question is also, "How is this going to be used, and is it necessary?" Designing weapons to defeat Hitler could easily be justified, cause Hitler. But designing weapons to, say, better fight the Iraq War? Furthering drone strike technology? Given that there was no need for that at all, I can't say that's ethical.
      - darawk 9y ago
        > Designing weapons to defeat Hitler could easily be justified, cause Hitler You can't just decide to make weapons when Hitler shows up. You need to be ready before Hitler shows up. > But designing weapons to, say, better fight the Iraq War? I'm no fan of the Iraq war. However, if we are going to fight the Iraq war, i'd certainly like us to have say, better targeted munitions, and I think Iraqi civilians would too. > Furthering drone strike technology? I'm a huge fan of drone strikes, so yes, to that one. That isn't to say i'm a huge fan of their indiscriminate use, of course. But if you're going to do some targeted killings, why not use drones? It exposes our soldiers to less risk, and allows for better, dispassionate targeting aided by automated tools. I think that's a great thing. Now, I do disagree at the margin with some of the policy choices about how drones have been used. But if someone is going to have the best drones, you'd better believe I want that someone to be the USG. > Given that there was no need for that at all, I can't say that's ethical. You're conflating the choice to go to war with the technology to facilitate that war. They are not the same thing. The choice to to war was a mistake. But once the choice has been made, ensuring that victory is swift and precise is absolutely ethical.

darawk 9y ago

The fact that violence has happened does not mean that it isn't substantially less than it was. The decrease in rates of violence in modern history is profound, and has been discussed at length, here's a chart: https://ourworldindata.org/slides/war-and-violence/#/6 https://ourworldindata.org/slides/war-and-violence/#/6 Do you see how it goes down since 1950? The fact that the US has been involved in conflicts is not evidence that the US, on balance, creates more violence. Does that mean the US military has made no mistakes? No, of course not. It's made plenty. But the world is a real place where decisions are made by people, and order is imposed by force. Someone is going to impose it. Surveying the landscape of world powers today, i'll take the US over anyone else, any and every day. And that is the only decision that matters. Talking about civilian deaths de-contextualized from the reality of the alternatives is exactly what I mean by 'naive'.

knuththetruth 9y ago
>Talking about civilian deaths de-contextualized from the reality of the alternatives is exactly what I mean by 'naive'. The alternative to the Iraq War was not having the Iraq War, which by any sane account was the correct course of action. Half a million people didn’t half to die, but they did, because a lot of people embrace a kind of unquestioning idea of authority as “good,” to which you seem to subscribe. >And that is the only decision that matters. You’re free to define the scope of your ethics however you like, but again, these kind of simplistic appeals are increasingly untenable to most people. And many would probably categorize your adherence to their logic as “naive.”
- darawk 9y ago
  > The alternative to the Iraq War was not having the Iraq War, which by any sane account was the correct course of action. Half a million people didn’t half to die, but they did You'll get no disagreement from me there. Like I said, and you seem to want to ignore, the US has done bad things. The question isn't "has this entity ever done anything wrong", the question you have to answer is: from the pool of available options, who's best? > You’re free to define the scope of your ethics however you like, but again, these kind of simplistic appeals are increasingly untenable to most people. And many would probably categorize your adherence to their logic as “naive.” It's your appeal that's simplistic. You're taking the world as you'd like it to be, rather than how it actually is. Someone has to have power. And if it's not the people you support, who's it going to be?
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    The question is also, "How is this going to be used, and is it necessary?" Designing weapons to defeat Hitler could easily be justified, cause Hitler. But designing weapons to, say, better fight the Iraq War? Furthering drone strike technology? Given that there was no need for that at all, I can't say that's ethical.
    - darawk 9y ago
      > Designing weapons to defeat Hitler could easily be justified, cause Hitler You can't just decide to make weapons when Hitler shows up. You need to be ready before Hitler shows up. > But designing weapons to, say, better fight the Iraq War? I'm no fan of the Iraq war. However, if we are going to fight the Iraq war, i'd certainly like us to have say, better targeted munitions, and I think Iraqi civilians would too. > Furthering drone strike technology? I'm a huge fan of drone strikes, so yes, to that one. That isn't to say i'm a huge fan of their indiscriminate use, of course. But if you're going to do some targeted killings, why not use drones? It exposes our soldiers to less risk, and allows for better, dispassionate targeting aided by automated tools. I think that's a great thing. Now, I do disagree at the margin with some of the policy choices about how drones have been used. But if someone is going to have the best drones, you'd better believe I want that someone to be the USG. > Given that there was no need for that at all, I can't say that's ethical. You're conflating the choice to go to war with the technology to facilitate that war. They are not the same thing. The choice to to war was a mistake. But once the choice has been made, ensuring that victory is swift and precise is absolutely ethical.