4 ms·
If this satisfies you better then: "Those who 'abjure' violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf." I suppose the problem w
by growlist 8y ago
If this satisfies you better then: "Those who 'abjure' violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf."
I suppose the problem with taking a position that says 'I'm not going to work for the military because I disagree with current US foreign policy' is that if/when an existential threat does arise the US might find itself far behind its foe, no?
- maze-le 8y agoI think thats a bit far fetched... Pacifism because of the reasons you just described(I'm not going to work for the military because I disagree with current US foreign policy) is a perfectly valid stance. The problem could only arise if everybody was on the same side and taking the same action. That is highly unlikely in a pluralistic society. The software development community is not a monolithic homogeneus block.
- boomboomsubban 8y agoWhen you quote someone, it's best to do it accurately. >that if/when an existential threat does arise the US might find itself far behind its foe, no? No, or unlikely. Any foreseeable threat is mutually assured destruction, and someone would need to discover a way to disable all nukes they don't control simultaneously for the US to be behind their for. Not only does that seem implausible, actively pursuing the technology would likely cause war.
- growlist 8y agoWho's to say your opponent will always be sane, or have something to lose? It's remarkably blasé to just say meh, MAD. Also there are many threats that could significantly degrade the US without destroying it, for example anti-satellite, cyber, to name a couple of obvious examples.
- boomboomsubban 8y agoNothing you've mentioned changes the fact that every truly existential threat ends up being mutually assured destruction. It's true even with desperate, insane foes that try a non nuclear attack first.