8 ms·
> I just am embarrassed when I tell people I work for the military because they think I make bombs or something. Personally, I don't understand this, but I'm f
by geoka9 8y ago
> I just am embarrassed when I tell people I work for the military because they think I make bombs or something.
Personally, I don't understand this, but I'm from an ex-Eastern Bloc country which I was all too happy to escape.
I'd rather the US (and the rest of the Western world) made bombs than only Russia and China did. Vacuums of power in the world will always be filled and a Western invasion/expeditionary force is a much nicer alternative to a Russian one.
- bshipp 8y agoHaving a military is kind of like having house insurance. you wish you didn't have to spend the money on it, you hope you never have to actually use it, but it would be very irresponsible not to have it.
- awakeasleep 8y agoIts more like buying a very expensive hammer, and “everything looks like a nail” See: afganistan, expanding africom, iraq, etc
- acct1771 8y agoAs long as you realize everyone feels that exact way.
- throwaaaway1231 8y agoEveryone does, we know.
- asdffdsa 8y agoie we spend a third of all our tax revenue on housing insurance
- leetcrew 8y agowhere is this "third" figure coming from?
- gweinberg 8y agoRight here: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud... except it's actually 1/6.
- asdffdsa 8y agoit's a poor proxy for "a lot"
- leetcrew 8y agoI figured. I admit I tend to be pedantic about the US military spending figure because, while huge, it is not nearly as large a portion of govt spending as most people think.
- sdenton4 8y agoSometimes my kids act up, so I smash a hole in the fence and call in my home insurance, which kills all the neighbors (and some of the kids).
- paulddraper 8y agoYou're talking to an audience that didn't see WWII, and mostly didn't see the Cold War. The ugly truth is that there are plenty of bad guys or people who would be bad guys (some of them in the U.S. admittedly), and a lot of them won't stop without force or threat of force. I know this isn't a universal opinion but I believe that smarter military technology has a better chance of ending/stopping/preventing war than starting it.
- Razengan 8y ago> smarter military technology has a better chance of ending/stopping/preventing war A global surveillance network and insect-sized drones that precisely assasinate "enemy" leaders. Why bother with infantry and big guns etc.?
- drdeca 8y agoI think it is better for exercises of large power to be noticeable, because if it can be noticed, then there is at least some hope that misuse could be opposed.
- colechristensen 8y agoGood vs. bad does not usually fit the narrative in war. WWI and earlier major wars are hard to figure who was the "bad guy". Many of them lack any clear moral authority and fit more as teams competing for resources.
- stevenjohns 8y ago> Vacuums of power in the world will always be filled and a Western invasion/expeditionary force is a much nicer alternative to a Russian one. In this case you're only speaking for yourself. Most Asians, from the Middle East through to the South East, would kindly disagree.
- joejerryronnie 8y agoGood to know you speak for “most asians”.
- stevenjohns 8y agoI think the political situation in many of those countries speaks volumes. There are very few countries or peoples which have a genuinely positive view of Western occupation. Most countries that have a positive view of "Western" nations above Russia are the ones that are bribed (weapon contracts, free defense, release of political pressure) or bullied (application of political pressure) to have it. If you spend some time looking at the divisive, genocidal campaigns of the Americans, British and French across Western, Southern and South-Eastern Asia it's not hard to see why.
- RhysU 8y ago> There are very few countries or peoples which have a genuinely positive view of Western occupation. On the other hand, let's consider how popular inter-Asian occupation was.
- stevenjohns 8y agoOr let's not, because this discussion doesn't have anything to do with how they view each other as neighbors - it's about perceptions towards "Western" occupation vs. Russian occupation.
- RhysU 8y agoWell, it felt like a complaint about Western vs non-Western occupation. Let's restrict non-Western to Russian as you suggest. You go first. How about you opine on Russian vs Western occupation?
- throwaaaway1231 8y agoAs someone who also is a military researcher, I may be able to help. I have worked on things that if the USA went to war, I know that I have directly contributed to that war. I truly hate that my research will contribute to killing. I wish that it wasn't necessary. But as events like Crimea annexation and the South China Sea shows, if the USA is not there, then other nations are very happy to use their might to boss others around. I truly do think the USA is a force for good, and I want that to be there for my following generations.
- wallace_f 8y agoI agree with you, but it's not so black and white. The atomic bomb is a notable example, and consider Eisenhower and many other military leaders said "there was no reason to use that awful thing." I realize my high school education, and most othet's, led me to believe this wasn't the case. I'm not trying to say it's wrong, but it deserves a lot of skepticism.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- colechristensen 8y agoReading a biography of Oppenheimer explores much of this. One thing is clear, the bomb was used on an essentially defeated enemy. From another angle though, it was necessary to push back Stalin and could be considered not as the last blow of WWII but the first blow in the cold war. It is difficult to question the possible outcomes if different choices were made but you can be sure that the last 80 years could have been much different and much worse. The bomb did make certain kinds of war impossible, and it is not clear if that would be true if they had not been used when they were.
- ethelward 8y ago> One thing is clear, the bomb was used on an essentially defeated enemy. The bomb were used on an enemy that was sooo defeated that there was a coup attempt by the military between the two bombs to prevent the emperor from capitulating.
- vasili111 8y agoI am from the same boat and tottaly agree with you. Many people dont understand how real Russian threat is.
- geomark 8y agoI used to work for a defense contractor and I remember the boogie man of the Soviet Union and how the intelligence community was constantly saying there was likely to be a breakout in new Soviet technology. So our budgets remained fat to fund lots of new spook technology programs. Right up to the day that the Soviet Union collapsed. I started looking with a more critical eye at the supposed threats.
- imrelaxed 8y agoeastern block expat also, agree whole heartedly. People who complain about the US have no idea how much worse it would be to have Russia in such a position of power instead.