6 ms·

Is all defense-related work complicit in murder? Do we not need a military? Nothing is perfect, but we are trapped on a planet with a bunch of violent, highly

Is all defense-related work complicit in murder? Do we not need a military? Nothing is perfect, but we are trapped on a planet with a bunch of violent, highly intelligent apes. Certainly the military does things I disagree with, and things could always be improved, but generally what is the alternative?

koheripbal 7y ago
kick's comment above is absolutely delusional. It's like something a teenager would write. Im starting to wonder if hackernews is turning into Reddit.
- Miner49er 7y ago
  From HN guidelines: > Please don't submit comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills. > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - koheripbal 7y ago
    Point taken, thank you. ...but I am concerned that HN is changing for the worse.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  A series of ad hominem attacks that don’t address the substance of the parent are superior because...?
- Filligree 7y ago
  Is it insufficiently cynical? It's something a teenager might write, yes, because teenagers often aren't hypocritical enough to ignore the murders just because it's a nation-state doing them. That doesn't make it wrong.
james-mcelwain 7y ago
There's a huge, gigantic difference between not having a military at all and spending 1 trillion a year to be an imperialist superpower. It's almost like... there's a middle ground.
- Hydraulix989 7y ago
  There's not, because it maintains a world order that would be happily taken up by someone else if the US didn't do it.
  - akiselev 7y ago
    There absolutely is a middle ground. It starts with actual audits of the DoD, which requires no reduction of capabilities and have never even been completed once.
- zionic 7y ago
  The thing is, we spend that much and we're not even good imperialists. When was the last time we annexed any territory? Declared a lesser state a protectorate? Or established a new colony? We spend trillions/year to be the world police so our "allies" don't have to while they mock us on twitter.
  - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
    We outsource the dirty stuff. The important thing is that there is a market for our bullets and bombs.
  - h0h0h0h0111 7y ago
    Annexed? In 2020, there is no need to annex a country to get everything you want from them - on the contrary, it's an administrative nightmare to annex a country when you can stick your military bases there, export your goods there, and make their economy dependent on your country's and your money without it.
    - 7y ago
kick 7y ago
Answer to the first question: in the United States, yes. Whether that is a bad thing is debatable and not suited for the site we're on; try a philosophy subreddit. The United States military has lost its privilege to play any form of moralism or rational justification after their actions over the past 30-50 years. It's no longer defense in most cases, it's assault. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, the second Iraq, invading Afghanistan for funsies, there's no point to most of it. We've only had one success in decades, and it still wasn't even related to defense! There's a difference between defense and imperialistic invasions, and the United States military hasn't defended much of anything at home in quite a while.
- knowa42 7y ago
  If you think that the only thing the U.S. military does is "assault" then you haven't really done any research at all, have you? Read up on force-projection, specifically as it relates to soft-power.
  - kick 7y ago
    Note I said most cases, which, in English, means "not all cases, but most of them." Obviously, the U.S. Military does slightly more than assault. Proportionally not much more, but a bit more. Like football. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Black_Knights_football https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Black_Knights_football
    - knowa42 7y ago
      Oh, okay. Unless you're relying solely on your "intuition" of what the U.S. military uses resources for, please post sources or figures for your quantification of U.S. force projection and how it's "mostly" used for assault.
  - FpUser 7y ago
    Assault - direct attack Force projection - do as we say or else.
Beltiras 7y ago
Less empire, more democracy.

koheripbal 7y ago

kick's comment above is absolutely delusional. It's like something a teenager would write. Im starting to wonder if hackernews is turning into Reddit.

Miner49er 7y ago
From HN guidelines: > Please don't submit comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills. > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- koheripbal 7y ago
  Point taken, thank you. ...but I am concerned that HN is changing for the worse.
claudeganon 7y ago
A series of ad hominem attacks that don’t address the substance of the parent are superior because...?
Filligree 7y ago
Is it insufficiently cynical? It's something a teenager might write, yes, because teenagers often aren't hypocritical enough to ignore the murders just because it's a nation-state doing them. That doesn't make it wrong.

james-mcelwain 7y ago

There's a huge, gigantic difference between not having a military at all and spending 1 trillion a year to be an imperialist superpower. It's almost like... there's a middle ground.

Hydraulix989 7y ago
There's not, because it maintains a world order that would be happily taken up by someone else if the US didn't do it.
- akiselev 7y ago
  There absolutely is a middle ground. It starts with actual audits of the DoD, which requires no reduction of capabilities and have never even been completed once.
zionic 7y ago
The thing is, we spend that much and we're not even good imperialists. When was the last time we annexed any territory? Declared a lesser state a protectorate? Or established a new colony? We spend trillions/year to be the world police so our "allies" don't have to while they mock us on twitter.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  We outsource the dirty stuff. The important thing is that there is a market for our bullets and bombs.
- h0h0h0h0111 7y ago
  Annexed? In 2020, there is no need to annex a country to get everything you want from them - on the contrary, it's an administrative nightmare to annex a country when you can stick your military bases there, export your goods there, and make their economy dependent on your country's and your money without it.
  - 7y ago

kick 7y ago

Answer to the first question: in the United States, yes. Whether that is a bad thing is debatable and not suited for the site we're on; try a philosophy subreddit. The United States military has lost its privilege to play any form of moralism or rational justification after their actions over the past 30-50 years. It's no longer defense in most cases, it's assault. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, the second Iraq, invading Afghanistan for funsies, there's no point to most of it. We've only had one success in decades, and it still wasn't even related to defense! There's a difference between defense and imperialistic invasions, and the United States military hasn't defended much of anything at home in quite a while.

knowa42 7y ago
If you think that the only thing the U.S. military does is "assault" then you haven't really done any research at all, have you? Read up on force-projection, specifically as it relates to soft-power.
- kick 7y ago
  Note I said most cases, which, in English, means "not all cases, but most of them." Obviously, the U.S. Military does slightly more than assault. Proportionally not much more, but a bit more. Like football. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Black_Knights_football https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Black_Knights_football
  - knowa42 7y ago
    Oh, okay. Unless you're relying solely on your "intuition" of what the U.S. military uses resources for, please post sources or figures for your quantification of U.S. force projection and how it's "mostly" used for assault.
- FpUser 7y ago
  Assault - direct attack Force projection - do as we say or else.

Beltiras 7y ago

Less empire, more democracy.