6 ms·

Are you sure you want to be unarmed in front of enemy just because someone else may use your weapons unresponsively? Look at Ukraine then. Ukraine exchanged th

Are you sure you want to be unarmed in front of enemy just because someone else may use your weapons unresponsively? Look at Ukraine then. Ukraine exchanged their nuclear arsenal for promises of safety by Russia, Britain, and USA. Is Ukraine safe place now?

Eupolemos 8y ago
I think all he's saying is, that until he feels his own country resolves to use its arsenal in a somewhat responsible manner (he gave some pretty good examples to the contrary), he doesn't think you can make weapons for them in good conscience.
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  Yep. But I'm asking about consequences. Ukraine was very poor after collapse of socialism, so USA had worries that Ukraine may sold or lost some of their nuclear bombs, ballistic missiles, or supersonic bomber to an enemy of USA, so USA (with Russia and Britain) promised security to Ukraine in exchange of promise to demolish all that, and to stop development of any new weapons which can harm USA. So we dropped our weapons and stayed unarmed in front of Russia. I personally, counter-attacked Russians with pneumatic pistole, which I then exchanged on field to hand-made grenade, so other few, with real hunter riffles, had chance against AK's and BTR. Is my example bad for you?
  - honestoHeminway 8y ago
    These are people who travel from gated communitys to gated work places, where there work might end some family life half a world away. Reality does no longer factor into those lifes.
sandworm101 8y ago
Speaking as someone in the military: yes. There are a great many weapons i dont want. Because by me (and everyone else in uniform) not wanting them they dont exist. Top of that list: plastic schrapnel. I dont want. It isnt manufactured. Therefore even ISIS cannot use it. Also on the list: direct-energy blinding weapons design to destroy the retina. Easily biult, but happily not a thing.
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  > Also on the list: direct-energy blinding weapons design to destroy the retina. Easily biult, but happily not a thing. They are used by Russians against Ukrainian snipers. Few snipers are already blind at working eye.
  - sandworm101 8y ago
    Ive seen public reports about this sort of thing. It is hard to verify exactly what is being employed. Sounds like consumer-type lasers, not purpose-biult stuff.
grumdan 8y ago
Helping a military that is behaving immorally and being unarmed are also not the only options. If more and more people refuse to work for the military on these grounds, this may in the long run put some pressure on them to change their behavior. I do admit that this is hopelessly idealistic though and I don't expect this to happen anytime soon.
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  Can I ask question first about "immorally" to be sure I understand you correctly? There are few different kind of morality in circulation, so I need to know about what morality we are talking. Liberal morale is used at the West: every person life costs infinity, so we cannot exchange life of a person to save another person or even infinity of persons. However, at war or in military, Liberal morale can't be used, because Liberal morale forbids to send soldiers to protect civilians: life of a soldier has same cost as lives of all civilians in the country. So every military in the world uses Utilitarian morale, where each life has a cost. In most countries, order of life cost is: our politics > our commandment > our civilians > other civilians > our soldiers > enemies, and goal is to minimize loses. In some countries order can be different, e.g. religious leaders can send civilians to kill other civilians or civilians can be used to protect soldiers (e.g. famous speech of V.V. Putin: «We will put our soldier behind their (Ukrainian) mothers and children. Not in front but behind. Will they shoot at them? At their own mothers and children?» https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoQXvPsBBn8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoQXvPsBBn8 ), and so on. So my question is: to which kind of morality you are referring when you are talking about "immorality"?
  - grumdan 8y ago
    I didn't have a concrete moral framework in mind, but I was thinking of a few baseline rules that should hold in most sensible systems, such as not bombing hospitals (like what happened with that hospital in Syria a while ago), not killing civilians without due process in countries where there is formally no state of war (drone strikes in Pakistan and other countries), not starting wars of aggression based on falsified intelligence (Iraq, Vietnam), investing reasonable amounts effort to avoid harm to non-combatants (that "Collateral Murder" video, US support for the Saudis' actions in Yemen, drone strikes based on just cellphone signals); all of these points are arguably features of many different moral systems and should be much less controversial than the dilemmas you bring up. I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I know to they are all standard components of rules of engagement (like the Geneva Convention). Also, all of these have been repeatedly violated by the US military or its contractors, making me more hesitant to want to help them, even under the assumption that they are necessary to protect our liberal societies from other regimes.

Eupolemos 8y ago

I think all he's saying is, that until he feels his own country resolves to use its arsenal in a somewhat responsible manner (he gave some pretty good examples to the contrary), he doesn't think you can make weapons for them in good conscience.

v_lisivka 8y ago
Yep. But I'm asking about consequences. Ukraine was very poor after collapse of socialism, so USA had worries that Ukraine may sold or lost some of their nuclear bombs, ballistic missiles, or supersonic bomber to an enemy of USA, so USA (with Russia and Britain) promised security to Ukraine in exchange of promise to demolish all that, and to stop development of any new weapons which can harm USA. So we dropped our weapons and stayed unarmed in front of Russia. I personally, counter-attacked Russians with pneumatic pistole, which I then exchanged on field to hand-made grenade, so other few, with real hunter riffles, had chance against AK's and BTR. Is my example bad for you?
- honestoHeminway 8y ago
  These are people who travel from gated communitys to gated work places, where there work might end some family life half a world away. Reality does no longer factor into those lifes.

sandworm101 8y ago

Speaking as someone in the military: yes. There are a great many weapons i dont want. Because by me (and everyone else in uniform) not wanting them they dont exist. Top of that list: plastic schrapnel. I dont want. It isnt manufactured. Therefore even ISIS cannot use it. Also on the list: direct-energy blinding weapons design to destroy the retina. Easily biult, but happily not a thing.

v_lisivka 8y ago
> Also on the list: direct-energy blinding weapons design to destroy the retina. Easily biult, but happily not a thing. They are used by Russians against Ukrainian snipers. Few snipers are already blind at working eye.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  Ive seen public reports about this sort of thing. It is hard to verify exactly what is being employed. Sounds like consumer-type lasers, not purpose-biult stuff.

grumdan 8y ago

Helping a military that is behaving immorally and being unarmed are also not the only options. If more and more people refuse to work for the military on these grounds, this may in the long run put some pressure on them to change their behavior. I do admit that this is hopelessly idealistic though and I don't expect this to happen anytime soon.

v_lisivka 8y ago
Can I ask question first about "immorally" to be sure I understand you correctly? There are few different kind of morality in circulation, so I need to know about what morality we are talking. Liberal morale is used at the West: every person life costs infinity, so we cannot exchange life of a person to save another person or even infinity of persons. However, at war or in military, Liberal morale can't be used, because Liberal morale forbids to send soldiers to protect civilians: life of a soldier has same cost as lives of all civilians in the country. So every military in the world uses Utilitarian morale, where each life has a cost. In most countries, order of life cost is: our politics > our commandment > our civilians > other civilians > our soldiers > enemies, and goal is to minimize loses. In some countries order can be different, e.g. religious leaders can send civilians to kill other civilians or civilians can be used to protect soldiers (e.g. famous speech of V.V. Putin: «We will put our soldier behind their (Ukrainian) mothers and children. Not in front but behind. Will they shoot at them? At their own mothers and children?» https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoQXvPsBBn8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoQXvPsBBn8 ), and so on. So my question is: to which kind of morality you are referring when you are talking about "immorality"?
- grumdan 8y ago
  I didn't have a concrete moral framework in mind, but I was thinking of a few baseline rules that should hold in most sensible systems, such as not bombing hospitals (like what happened with that hospital in Syria a while ago), not killing civilians without due process in countries where there is formally no state of war (drone strikes in Pakistan and other countries), not starting wars of aggression based on falsified intelligence (Iraq, Vietnam), investing reasonable amounts effort to avoid harm to non-combatants (that "Collateral Murder" video, US support for the Saudis' actions in Yemen, drone strikes based on just cellphone signals); all of these points are arguably features of many different moral systems and should be much less controversial than the dilemmas you bring up. I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I know to they are all standard components of rules of engagement (like the Geneva Convention). Also, all of these have been repeatedly violated by the US military or its contractors, making me more hesitant to want to help them, even under the assumption that they are necessary to protect our liberal societies from other regimes.