4 ms·

>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 no

>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.
    - mattmanser 9y ago
      This is a ridiculous defence. If you make weapons, you are a killer. If there were really a hell, you would be going to it. Be you a blacksmith who crafts swords in the 10th century or a software developer who makes military drone software in the 21st. That you celebrate the use of drones, which save the life of one American at the expense of many innocent non-Americans, shows how utterly morally bankrupt your views are. Military drones are an evil, allowing the US to wage wars and kill innocents in "collateral damage", otherwise known as mass-murder, without the PR backlash of losing soldiers.
      - darawk 9y ago
        It's like you didn't even read what I said. The world isn't a moral vacuum. You abdicating power does not mean that nobody has it. It means someone else does. If all of the 'good' people say "weapons and war are immoral", guess who is in control of all the weapons and war? It's really pretty easy to think through, and it's really pretty naive to bury your head in the sand.
  - Fins 9y ago
    When the next Hitler comes (and knowing human nature it is quite likely), it will be a bit late to start designing weapons to fight him.
- mindslight 9y ago
  > the question you have to answer is: from the pool of available options, who's best? This question is misleading, as the goal is never to pick the nicest tyrant and is certainly not to backstop their power. While USG is a stabilizing force in the world with regards to its peers that also have significant armaments, it also acts as a destabilizing force towards those it can assimilate with impunity. It's not that designing or building weapons is wrong by itself. The problem is further advancing the offensive capabilities of the already-uncontested leader of the race - a leader which continually opts for routine use of those capabilities when it is easy. The infrastructure for remotely piloting drones halfway around the world isn't going to help defend in a mortal war against China, but it does make nicer day jobs for those roflstomping the latest economically-deviant backwater. Coupled with the domestic political fuckery from the military-industrial-surveillance complex, the current answer is to just say no. If you want to build weapons, do so in the privacy of your own shed - you'll be better prepared to defend yourself when this overstretched empire collapses.

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.
  - mattmanser 9y ago
    This is a ridiculous defence. If you make weapons, you are a killer. If there were really a hell, you would be going to it. Be you a blacksmith who crafts swords in the 10th century or a software developer who makes military drone software in the 21st. That you celebrate the use of drones, which save the life of one American at the expense of many innocent non-Americans, shows how utterly morally bankrupt your views are. Military drones are an evil, allowing the US to wage wars and kill innocents in "collateral damage", otherwise known as mass-murder, without the PR backlash of losing soldiers.
    - darawk 9y ago
      It's like you didn't even read what I said. The world isn't a moral vacuum. You abdicating power does not mean that nobody has it. It means someone else does. If all of the 'good' people say "weapons and war are immoral", guess who is in control of all the weapons and war? It's really pretty easy to think through, and it's really pretty naive to bury your head in the sand.
- Fins 9y ago
  When the next Hitler comes (and knowing human nature it is quite likely), it will be a bit late to start designing weapons to fight him.
mindslight 9y ago
> the question you have to answer is: from the pool of available options, who's best? This question is misleading, as the goal is never to pick the nicest tyrant and is certainly not to backstop their power. While USG is a stabilizing force in the world with regards to its peers that also have significant armaments, it also acts as a destabilizing force towards those it can assimilate with impunity. It's not that designing or building weapons is wrong by itself. The problem is further advancing the offensive capabilities of the already-uncontested leader of the race - a leader which continually opts for routine use of those capabilities when it is easy. The infrastructure for remotely piloting drones halfway around the world isn't going to help defend in a mortal war against China, but it does make nicer day jobs for those roflstomping the latest economically-deviant backwater. Coupled with the domestic political fuckery from the military-industrial-surveillance complex, the current answer is to just say no. If you want to build weapons, do so in the privacy of your own shed - you'll be better prepared to defend yourself when this overstretched empire collapses.