6 ms·

> Regardless of our views on the military, no one should be profiting from “increasing the lethality” of the military. It makes no sense for these two clauses

by ENOTTY 8y ago

> Regardless of our views on the military, no one should be profiting from “increasing the lethality” of the military. It makes no sense for these two clauses to exist together. If you do not believe that people should profit from increasing the lethality of the military, then you do not believe in the utility of having a military. Especially when the author follows up with this sentence: > We will not silently build technology to oppress and kill people, whether in our country or in others. That is the whole point of having armed forces! Armed forces exist to provide achieve foreign policy goals (deterrence, coercion) through the credible threat of its lethality. These two sentences are fundamentally pacifist, which is okay if the author claimed that mantle. But don't dress it up with a fake unifying clause like "regardless of our views on the military".

chrisseaton 8y ago
Maybe ‘profiting’ was the key bit? Maybe they think it’s ok for the government to build weapon systems but not for civilians to profit from doing that same work? But then can suppliers profit? Is a salary profit for an individual? Not really sure it ‘scales’ as an point of view.
dandare 8y ago
I agree. Even if your doctrine is purely defensive you show develop in efficient, profit seeking framework. Question the doctrie, not the efficiency.
TelmoMenezes 8y ago
> If you do not believe that people should profit from increasing the lethality of the military, then you do not believe in the utility of having a military. That doesn't follow. One can believe in the utility of the military while at the same time holding that it must operate purely as a public service, so that no incentives are created for a state of permanent war. Famously, an American president expressed this very concern. I doubt that Dwight Eisenhower did not believe in the utility of the military, given that he was a general.
- ENOTTY 8y ago
  Unless the staff operating the public service receive no compensation at all, then there is profit involved.
  - jtr1 8y ago
    This seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of profit.
    - adrianN 8y ago
      A salary is an expense for the company providing it, but the person receiving it profits from it.
      - AlexandrB 8y ago
        I'd like you to try to claim your salary as corporate "profit" on your next tax return. Tell me how that goes.
        adrianN 8y ago
        "Profit" is a word with several meanings, not all of which are related to tax returns. For example I profit from my education without being able to declare it as corporate profit on my tax return.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - bootlooped 8y ago
    If you go down that road, then you would also have to conclude that all prisons are for-profit prisons, since the guards are always paid employees. I think that's misinterpreting or misrepresenting the way "profit" is being used in this sense though.
    - 8y ago
fipple 8y ago
No, I believe the military should exist but shouldn’t be too good at its job. If the US president knows that 3,000 American soldiers will die doing something, it will make the calculus of doing it very different than if only 3 soldiers would die. This may actually save lives overallx
- eiaoa 8y ago
  > No, I believe the military should exist but shouldn’t be too good at its job. If the US president knows that 3,000 American soldiers will die doing something, it will make the calculus of doing it very different than if only 3 soldiers would die. This may actually save lives overallx That's a really silly idea. A military that's bad at its job is a military that can't act as an adequate deterrent and can't defend its country or its allies. You might as well just save the money and disband most of it, and let the countries who kept competent militaries have their way with you and your allies.
- mmmmmmmmm 8y ago
  The idiots are out in force on hacker news today. This is absolutely moronic. After reading this comment, I'm surprised you even know how to use a computer.
- loco5niner 8y ago
  That's a REALLY bad idea. Shooting yourself in the foot is a perfect analogy here.
bagacrap 8y ago
The US military is not really "winning" in Afghanistan but I don't think it's for lack of lethality, so clearly you can improve the military without changing its lethality. Wouldn't a perfect war (or "action") result in all your political objectives being achieved with zero deaths in either side?
- mercutio2 8y ago
  Indeed. The goal of the military is to apply force with as much precision as possible, to preserve the perception of legitimacy for audiences at home and abroad as much as possible. Being lethal isn’t necessary to apply force; effectively applying non-lethal force is just much harder, so current military doctrine emphasizes lethality against combatants. But against irregular opponents, whose goal is often to sow hatred for the opposing, powerful military because of their heavy handed tactics, being able to consistently and safely apply non-lethal force would arguably improve military effectiveness.
  - sjg007 8y ago
    even with the internet today we don't see. maybe vr will give us a key to end the suffering.
sam0x17 8y ago
It is perfectly consistent for example to believe that it is OK to have a military, but not to do any R&D in the private sector. That is what this guy is advocating.
- mercutio2 8y ago
  Edit: first comment was applied on the wrong thread, oops! I agree that engineering lethal tools only by people directly employed by the military is one possible way to make this argument internally consistent. Another way is to just decide that non-lethal force is a useful and legitimate tool for the military.
- tracker1 8y ago
  So you think we should duplicate R&D that's already happening in the private sector and increase taxpayer costs?
Ilverin 8y ago
> If you do not believe that people should profit from increasing the lethality of the military, then you do not believe in the utility of having a military. Alternative: You can believe that circumstances dictate if the military is doing good or bad things. If the military is doing bad things, it is a reasonable argument to oppose them. Clearest example is Yemen. A less clear and debateable example is: the excessive size of the US military may cause other countries like Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran to build up their own militaries to defend themselves when they would otherwise reduce their military spending. In some cases, mutual disarmament can work, however, it hasn't been tried sufficiently hard (e.g. USA hasn't ever proposed reducing its number of aircraft carriers by treaty, so carriers require asymmetrical warfare capability in order to deter aggression from USA).
- mercutio2 8y ago
  Horrible things are happening in Yemen, but I’m not sure why you say it’s a clear example of something the [implicitily, US?] military is doing that is clearly bad. I say this as someone who has ranged from medium to full-throated opposed to essentially every adventure undertaken by the US military and CIA in the past 50 years or so. The militants on both sides seem really bad in Yemen.
  - Ilverin 8y ago
    If both sides are bad, then helping either side accomplishes nothing good unless it ends the war sooner. If the side you support is enforcing a blockade and causing harm to civilians, that is a bad thing while it lasts. In reality, the Saudis have no realistic plan to win in Yemen, so helping them will not end the war anytime soon. In the meantime, Yemen has the worst famine in the last 100 years.
mindcrime 8y ago
That is the whole point of having armed forces! Armed forces exist to provide achieve foreign policy goals (deterrence, coercion) through the credible threat of its lethality. WTF? No, just no. The only foreign policy goal the armed forces exist to serve is defense of the homeland. Everything else is a misuses of the military. Just because it's commonplace in this day and age doesn't mean it's OK or that anyone should accept it.
- _iyig 8y ago
  Serious question: was liberating Auschwitz a misuse of the military?
  - mindcrime 8y ago
    Given that Germany had declared war on the US, and the liberation of Auschwitz was a direct consequence of defeating Germany, I'll say "no". But that doesn't mean that there's a general principle that "just because something has a desirable outcome, the action itself was proper or justified". Use of force should be reserved for all but the most dire circumstances in general.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  That's a seriously naive take. Militaries exist to project power onto foreign entities. Defense of national territory is but one use for that projected power. Keeping trade lanes open--such as those through the Straits of Hormuz or the South China Sea--is another use. Enforcing a trade blockade or embargo is another. The size and lethality of your military is measurable proof of your commitment to a particular political issue.
- closeparen 8y ago
  For better or worse, defense of the homeland is not accomplished by literally standing at the US border waiting for someone to step over the line, but by working to neutralize threats and prevent their emergence abroad.
  - 8y ago
rhacker 8y ago
So because we have a military we should maximize everything: 1. When going to work we should be strip searched - that's definitely maximizing the military power. 2. We should all be required to fight in military campaigns at the age of 18 and stop when we are 65, that is definitely maximizing the military. 3. We should bomb all other countries on this planet until there is no one left, because that is maximizing the deadly force of the military.

by ENOTTY 8y ago

chrisseaton 8y ago

Maybe ‘profiting’ was the key bit? Maybe they think it’s ok for the government to build weapon systems but not for civilians to profit from doing that same work? But then can suppliers profit? Is a salary profit for an individual? Not really sure it ‘scales’ as an point of view.

dandare 8y ago

I agree. Even if your doctrine is purely defensive you show develop in efficient, profit seeking framework. Question the doctrie, not the efficiency.

TelmoMenezes 8y ago

> If you do not believe that people should profit from increasing the lethality of the military, then you do not believe in the utility of having a military. That doesn't follow. One can believe in the utility of the military while at the same time holding that it must operate purely as a public service, so that no incentives are created for a state of permanent war. Famously, an American president expressed this very concern. I doubt that Dwight Eisenhower did not believe in the utility of the military, given that he was a general.

ENOTTY 8y ago
Unless the staff operating the public service receive no compensation at all, then there is profit involved.
- jtr1 8y ago
  This seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of profit.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    A salary is an expense for the company providing it, but the person receiving it profits from it.
    - AlexandrB 8y ago
      I'd like you to try to claim your salary as corporate "profit" on your next tax return. Tell me how that goes.
      - adrianN 8y ago
        "Profit" is a word with several meanings, not all of which are related to tax returns. For example I profit from my education without being able to declare it as corporate profit on my tax return.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- bootlooped 8y ago
  If you go down that road, then you would also have to conclude that all prisons are for-profit prisons, since the guards are always paid employees. I think that's misinterpreting or misrepresenting the way "profit" is being used in this sense though.
  - 8y ago

fipple 8y ago

No, I believe the military should exist but shouldn’t be too good at its job. If the US president knows that 3,000 American soldiers will die doing something, it will make the calculus of doing it very different than if only 3 soldiers would die. This may actually save lives overallx

eiaoa 8y ago
> No, I believe the military should exist but shouldn’t be too good at its job. If the US president knows that 3,000 American soldiers will die doing something, it will make the calculus of doing it very different than if only 3 soldiers would die. This may actually save lives overallx That's a really silly idea. A military that's bad at its job is a military that can't act as an adequate deterrent and can't defend its country or its allies. You might as well just save the money and disband most of it, and let the countries who kept competent militaries have their way with you and your allies.
mmmmmmmmm 8y ago
The idiots are out in force on hacker news today. This is absolutely moronic. After reading this comment, I'm surprised you even know how to use a computer.
loco5niner 8y ago
That's a REALLY bad idea. Shooting yourself in the foot is a perfect analogy here.

bagacrap 8y ago

The US military is not really "winning" in Afghanistan but I don't think it's for lack of lethality, so clearly you can improve the military without changing its lethality. Wouldn't a perfect war (or "action") result in all your political objectives being achieved with zero deaths in either side?

mercutio2 8y ago
Indeed. The goal of the military is to apply force with as much precision as possible, to preserve the perception of legitimacy for audiences at home and abroad as much as possible. Being lethal isn’t necessary to apply force; effectively applying non-lethal force is just much harder, so current military doctrine emphasizes lethality against combatants. But against irregular opponents, whose goal is often to sow hatred for the opposing, powerful military because of their heavy handed tactics, being able to consistently and safely apply non-lethal force would arguably improve military effectiveness.
- sjg007 8y ago
  even with the internet today we don't see. maybe vr will give us a key to end the suffering.

sam0x17 8y ago

It is perfectly consistent for example to believe that it is OK to have a military, but not to do any R&D in the private sector. That is what this guy is advocating.

mercutio2 8y ago
Edit: first comment was applied on the wrong thread, oops! I agree that engineering lethal tools only by people directly employed by the military is one possible way to make this argument internally consistent. Another way is to just decide that non-lethal force is a useful and legitimate tool for the military.
tracker1 8y ago
So you think we should duplicate R&D that's already happening in the private sector and increase taxpayer costs?

Ilverin 8y ago

> If you do not believe that people should profit from increasing the lethality of the military, then you do not believe in the utility of having a military. Alternative: You can believe that circumstances dictate if the military is doing good or bad things. If the military is doing bad things, it is a reasonable argument to oppose them. Clearest example is Yemen. A less clear and debateable example is: the excessive size of the US military may cause other countries like Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran to build up their own militaries to defend themselves when they would otherwise reduce their military spending. In some cases, mutual disarmament can work, however, it hasn't been tried sufficiently hard (e.g. USA hasn't ever proposed reducing its number of aircraft carriers by treaty, so carriers require asymmetrical warfare capability in order to deter aggression from USA).

mercutio2 8y ago
Horrible things are happening in Yemen, but I’m not sure why you say it’s a clear example of something the [implicitily, US?] military is doing that is clearly bad. I say this as someone who has ranged from medium to full-throated opposed to essentially every adventure undertaken by the US military and CIA in the past 50 years or so. The militants on both sides seem really bad in Yemen.
- Ilverin 8y ago
  If both sides are bad, then helping either side accomplishes nothing good unless it ends the war sooner. If the side you support is enforcing a blockade and causing harm to civilians, that is a bad thing while it lasts. In reality, the Saudis have no realistic plan to win in Yemen, so helping them will not end the war anytime soon. In the meantime, Yemen has the worst famine in the last 100 years.

mindcrime 8y ago

That is the whole point of having armed forces! Armed forces exist to provide achieve foreign policy goals (deterrence, coercion) through the credible threat of its lethality. WTF? No, just no. The only foreign policy goal the armed forces exist to serve is defense of the homeland. Everything else is a misuses of the military. Just because it's commonplace in this day and age doesn't mean it's OK or that anyone should accept it.

_iyig 8y ago
Serious question: was liberating Auschwitz a misuse of the military?
- mindcrime 8y ago
  Given that Germany had declared war on the US, and the liberation of Auschwitz was a direct consequence of defeating Germany, I'll say "no". But that doesn't mean that there's a general principle that "just because something has a desirable outcome, the action itself was proper or justified". Use of force should be reserved for all but the most dire circumstances in general.
logfromblammo 8y ago
That's a seriously naive take. Militaries exist to project power onto foreign entities. Defense of national territory is but one use for that projected power. Keeping trade lanes open--such as those through the Straits of Hormuz or the South China Sea--is another use. Enforcing a trade blockade or embargo is another. The size and lethality of your military is measurable proof of your commitment to a particular political issue.
closeparen 8y ago
For better or worse, defense of the homeland is not accomplished by literally standing at the US border waiting for someone to step over the line, but by working to neutralize threats and prevent their emergence abroad.
- 8y ago

rhacker 8y ago

So because we have a military we should maximize everything: 1. When going to work we should be strip searched - that's definitely maximizing the military power. 2. We should all be required to fight in military campaigns at the age of 18 and stop when we are 65, that is definitely maximizing the military. 3. We should bomb all other countries on this planet until there is no one left, because that is maximizing the deadly force of the military.