3 ms·
Even those first two can have fairly foreseeable negative effects, though. Not necessarily net negative, mind you, but negative. If (e.g.) American soldiers hav
by GeneralMayhem 6y ago
Even those first two can have fairly foreseeable negative effects, though. Not necessarily net negative, mind you, but negative. If (e.g.) American soldiers have less tedium in their downtime (e.g., because paperwork is automated) and are safer (e.g. because their body armor is better), it could very reasonably lead to missions or even whole wars being undertaken that would otherwise be unconscionable. It's kind of like boxing gloves or football pads - on the face of it, it makes things safer, but because everyone knows it's "safer", they're willing to push it further.
Not judging your decision (although I personally prefer not working for defense/defense contractors), just pointing out that "it only makes soldiers safer!" isn't an ironclad rebuttal.
- deathgrips 6y agoThat's the point of armies, to be as lethal and effective as possible. A protracted war benefits no one, and a powerful army acts as a deterrent. I think that if you think your country has the right to self-defense, you have a moral obligation to make it as lethal as possible. Ethics is not an excuse for inaction or abandonment of responsibility.
- GeneralMayhem 6y agoI think this calculus becomes slightly different when you're talking about a nation that will never be in an existential defensive war. A protracted war benefits no one, but knowing that a war would be protracted might benefit the side that would otherwise be the loser by serving as a deterrent to the winner.
- deathgrips 6y agoA protracted war benefits the military of the weaker side but I doubt their people would like it. Also, I can't recall the last time the United States was deterred from entering war because it would last too long.