3 ms·

> contribute to it's defence What defense? Against whom? When was the last time the United States had to defend itself against invaders? We've grown accustome

by jwr 8y ago

> contribute to it's defence What defense? Against whom? When was the last time the United States had to defend itself against invaders? We've grown accustomed to how military technology (for killing people) is called "defense". It sounds benign. It feels better to work on advancing "defense" technology than on building tools to kill people. Pretty much all "Defense" technology after WWII has only been used to invade and occupy other countries (by means of killing people).

loco5niner 8y ago
> When was the last time the United States had to defend itself against invaders? Every. Day. The fact that you are able to ask this question means the military is doing this job well and most people don't even notice.
- sir_brickalot 8y ago
  Where, when, how? Reference needed.
  - akie 8y ago
    Against our very dangerous neighbors Mexico and Canada, obviously.
    - m463 8y ago
      I just realized a wall is actually a defensive technology.
simonh 8y ago
An attack doesn’t need up be direct in order to harm a country’s vital national interests and security. Britain went to war in both WW1 and WW2 despite not suffering direct attacks against its territory. I made the claim that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait could not be allowed up stand, and I firmly believe it. Having said that, there have been many direct attack’s against the US since WW2. The 9/11 attacks were an act of naked direct aggression carried out with the explicit support and protection of a nation state - Taliban Afghanistan. If that’s wasn’t an act of war, what is? The rest of NATO certainly thought so. A Marines barracks was destroyed in Lebanon with the direct support and encouragement if Iran. US warships have been directly attacked in the Persian gulf. Al Qaeda launched a bloody campaign of bombings against US Embassies in Africa in 1998. Arguably these were due to US activities abroad, but taking action to protect and support allies is, or certainly can be a legitimate national interest. Containing nakedly and self admittedly hostile active powers is a reasonable activity, but it does put you in the firing line. For the sake of argument, what would you have done about 9/11, or the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? I’m not blind to many mistakes made in the last century. I think the Korean War was justifiable. On balance the Vietnam War was not. I still have mixed feelings about the second gulf war. Being engaged means you risk making mistakes, that’s for sure, but being disengaged makes you culpable for the evils you fail to prevent or allow to stand.

by jwr 8y ago

loco5niner 8y ago

> When was the last time the United States had to defend itself against invaders? Every. Day. The fact that you are able to ask this question means the military is doing this job well and most people don't even notice.

sir_brickalot 8y ago
Where, when, how? Reference needed.
- akie 8y ago
  Against our very dangerous neighbors Mexico and Canada, obviously.
  - m463 8y ago
    I just realized a wall is actually a defensive technology.

simonh 8y ago

An attack doesn’t need up be direct in order to harm a country’s vital national interests and security. Britain went to war in both WW1 and WW2 despite not suffering direct attacks against its territory. I made the claim that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait could not be allowed up stand, and I firmly believe it. Having said that, there have been many direct attack’s against the US since WW2. The 9/11 attacks were an act of naked direct aggression carried out with the explicit support and protection of a nation state - Taliban Afghanistan. If that’s wasn’t an act of war, what is? The rest of NATO certainly thought so. A Marines barracks was destroyed in Lebanon with the direct support and encouragement if Iran. US warships have been directly attacked in the Persian gulf. Al Qaeda launched a bloody campaign of bombings against US Embassies in Africa in 1998. Arguably these were due to US activities abroad, but taking action to protect and support allies is, or certainly can be a legitimate national interest. Containing nakedly and self admittedly hostile active powers is a reasonable activity, but it does put you in the firing line. For the sake of argument, what would you have done about 9/11, or the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? I’m not blind to many mistakes made in the last century. I think the Korean War was justifiable. On balance the Vietnam War was not. I still have mixed feelings about the second gulf war. Being engaged means you risk making mistakes, that’s for sure, but being disengaged makes you culpable for the evils you fail to prevent or allow to stand.