9 ms·

The author glosses over my biggest question "Who might you have to fight?" with a informative "Queen’s enemies." Might his squadron be called in to quash civil

The author glosses over my biggest question "Who might you have to fight?" with a informative "Queen’s enemies." Might his squadron be called in to quash civil disturbance? Sent to the next Iraq? Is it reserved for defending the UK from invasion?

watwut 5y ago
Afaik, soldiers don't get to choose. The queens enemies is pretty much good description, because his guess is as good as yours.
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  I don't think they were literally looking for an answer for this specific question, but pointing out how unsettling, at the very least, the lack of concrete answers is. Anyway if they won't say it I will: signing up to fight without knowing who or why you'll be fighting is morally compromised at the extreme very best. Modern economic powers like the UK do not use their militaries for self-defense. Someone able to write with his sophistication about the military knows what they use them for. In serving, and even in writing this piece of pro-military propaganda, he's supporting imperial violence.
  - daedalus_f 5y ago
    > Modern economic powers like the UK do not use their militaries for self-defense. Modern economic powers have militaries and alliances that make attacking them unattractive. They have sufficient teeth to dissuade conflict. If you are fortunate enough to live in a Western democracy your safety and security is preserved by the actions of those who you call morally compromised.
    - giraffe_lady 5y ago
      Doesn't really matter for this purpose, I'm not arguing that the military is inherently wrong, or that military service is. I'm asserting that by far the most likely use of a wealthy nation's military is going to be a bad one. Encouraging people to join the military in that context is bad. People have an incredibly wide range of reasons for joining or supporting militaries, and I would absolutely not universally condemn all of them. Just this one. --- That aside, just because I benefit from something doesn't make it ok. What kind of first grader ethics is that?
      - daedalus_f 5y ago
        > I'm not arguing that the military is inherently wrong, or that military service is. Just that everyone who signs up for the military of a developed nation is morally compromised at the extreme very best. Can you square that statement with believing in the moral existence of a military for a developed nation? > By far the most likely use of a wealthy nation's military is going to be a bad one And yet, as I said, developed nations require a military for defence. The world is not a nice place, as Russia is current proving, and modern conflicts cannot be fought successfully with poor quality untrained troops recruited on the fly for a particular conflict, where those signing up know what they are going to be doing in advance. Developed nations therefore need a well trained standing army. In signing up for this army, people put their lives on the line, and in doing so protect you, me and others from harm. I do not consider doing this for that ideal morally compromised. You are right that nations have engaged in wars of aggression that should not have been fought. Living in such a nation I bear some of the responsibility for those wars, as do the soldiers who fought in those wars, but much less than the politicians and dictators who declared them for their own or their nations strategic gain in the first place. Unfortunately nice binary moral choices are few and far between. > That aside, just because I benefit from something doesn't make it ok. What kind of first grader ethics is that? My point was not to suggest that because you benefit from something that makes it ok, as you well know.
        selectodude 5y ago
        >And yet, as I said, developed nations require a military for defence. The world is not a nice place, as Russia is current proving, and modern conflicts cannot be fought successfully with poor quality untrained troops recruited on the fly for a particular conflict, where those signing up know what they are going to be doing in advance. Developed nations therefore need a well trained standing army. Seriously, how do people miss this. The US Military is currently advising the Ukrainian armed forces while Germany has their thumb up their ass spending billions on Russian hydrocarbons. Unfortunately conscientious objection only works in the world we all wished we lived in. Somebody has to hold the guns and spend the money on this shit.
  - throwaway675309 5y ago
    THANK YOU. it's amazing how this point seems to be lost on so many people, it would be one thing if I were able to contribute to a specific conflict or situation that I was ideologically aligned with... it's a completely different thing to sign away my life to the military and give them carte blanche to point me anywhere they choose.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  +1. Part of being part of a national military is subordinating your desires to the chain of command, which in a democracy usually flows to the highest elected official. If one wants to pick and choose "right" conflicts, one shouldn't serve. And ultimately... while I know HN has a pretty anti-authority bend... if you don't trust your government to deploy military power, what do you trust them for? Which isn't saying that uses of military power in reality are always right or justified, but is saying that effectively every other government power rests on top of its having the authority to use force to enforce compliance. And a military is a major component of that.
  - rhn_mk1 5y ago
    Being subordinate didn't work for the Nuremberg "I was following orders" crowd, which makes me doubt your assertion. > if you don't trust your government to deploy military power, what do you trust them for? Do you have to trust them for anything? It's not like it's a viable option to decide that you don't want to designate any government as "yours". Good luck surviving in no man's land if you do. What makes government "theirs" for lots of people is just the threat of organized violence or exclusion.
    - adewinter 5y ago
      Hard to tell if you're just trolling or being serious. * Nuremberg and "just following orders" was about actual orders to specific individuals to do things that were literal war crimes, and those individuals carrying those orders out. One country designating another country an enemy is not, in fact, a war crime. >> Do you have to trust them for anything? I mean, yes? Even when you live in a libertarian fantasy land it turns out you need to have some level of trust in a government. You trust the road you're driving on won't collapse and that the folks at fire department know which end of the hose the water comes out of. You trust that because you trust that the gov that pays for that made the right choices. You can pretend you can have a society without relying on an organized collective of people who live in that society but I cannot logically see how that would work.
      - 5y ago
- voakbasda 5y ago
  Every soldier has the choice whether to follow or disobey an order of dubious legal/moral consequence. If you are asked to kill babies, you sure as shit had better say "no". As a species, there is broad agreement that "just following orders" is not a defense for committing crimes against humanity.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    > A lot of people talk about Mỹ Lai, and they say, 'Well, you know, yeah, but you can't follow an illegal order.' Trust me. There is no such thing. Not in the military. If I go into a combat situation and I tell them, 'No, I'm not going. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to follow that order', well, they'd put me up against the wall and shoot me. ~ Lawrence La Croix, a squad leader in Charlie Company in Mỹ Lai
    - drran 5y ago
      Illegal/immoral orders can be silently sabotaged and reported later. Look at RF and Belarus. Russians are happy to kill Ukrainians, while Belarussians are wrecking Russian military trains. They received same orders.
      - monocasa 5y ago
        Only if the lower echelons of leadership are on board with sabotaging the orders. If they're not that's when you end up taking the "enemy fire" that back authorizes the use of force for the war crime.
        watwut 5y ago
        Dude, they are illegal and are risking torture and jail of they will be caught. It is underground opposition doing those things.
        monocasa 5y ago
        That generally agrees with my statements.
amanaplanacanal 5y ago
I'ts likely whatever wild hair the politicians dream up. Which has always made that a "hell no" for me. Not willing to go murder people because some politician thinks it's a good idea.
scandox 5y ago
> At RubyConf 2014 someone in the lunch queue asked what I did before I was in tech and asked me if I enjoyed killing babies when I explained. To some extent your question is in the same category as the above. It decontextualizes the situation entirely. He lives in a democracy. He obviously believes that society is less worse than some visible alternatives. He therefore believes he can fight on its behalf based on what the democratic leadership determine. It's obviously possible for him to morally re-evaluate that at a later point: it might even cost him his life to do so. But his actions are morally considered whereas I think the question is morally thoughtless.
- giaour 5y ago
  I don't know if this was your intention, but your comment comes off as extremely dismissive. If you are joining a fighting force, you absolutely should consider where and how you might be deployed should your unit get mobilized. There is a tremendous difference between doing an active tour of duty in a foreign country and being called up domestically, and it is fine to use your own moral calculus when weighing the two. In the US, for example, part time opportunities are either in the reserves or the national guard, with the former having a foreign focus and the latter having a domestic focus. Plenty of guardsmen ended up doing tours in Iraq, but more recently, guardsmen helped staff overwhelmed medical facilities during the height of the pandemic.
  - hitekker 5y ago
    It's fine to dismiss boring flamebait. The top-level comment is dressed up to sound curious but basically falls in the same category of questions that the GP and OP called out as thoughtless.
    - giaour 5y ago
      I think the top-level comment ("Might his squadron be called in to quash civil disturbance? Sent to the next Iraq? Is it reserved for defending the UK from invasion?") is exactly the kind of thing you should ask yourself when joining something like the Army Reserves. Everyone has some things they will not do, and it's important to figure out what those might be before finding yourself pushed to those limits. The thoughtless comments basically express the idea that no one should be in any military, whereas thoughtful questions acknowledge that not everyone has the same red lines.
Gadiguibou 5y ago
I was wondering exactly this. I see the author is still here in the comments and I'm curious to know how he feels about this. Does he get to choose whether he fights or not? Does he get reasonably and transparently informed about the issues leading to him being deployed? Having to fight or kill is not something one should consider lightly. It's a responsibility that very few should have to bear and hopefully you should be as informed as possible about why you're doing it when making the decision to bear that responsibility.
pjc50 5y ago
> Might his squadron be called in to quash civil disturbance? Sent to the next Iraq? Is it reserved for defending the UK from invasion? Yes, yes, and no. His own explanation mentions Peterloo! He joined the full time army during the Iraq war (although doesn't mention being deployed). This is evidently not something he's curious about. Ukraine has certainly highlighted the need for a defensive force. It's also made the question of whether all the fighting of the past 20 years has made the world safer or more dangerous - you could argue that Iraq re-established the precedent for aggressive war, and the fallout has made most of the muslim world less safe. Including Russia's war in Syria. Which they used as training for invading Ukraine.
InCityDreams 5y ago
He should fight the Grammar Nazi's: "A Hobby Gotten Out Of Hand"...very American(?), and terribly un-British.
michaelt 5y ago
According to [1] in 2004, when numbers were at their peak, reservists made up 20% of Britain's strength in Iraq; and 'large numbers' of reservists deployed in Afghanistan. Seems to me that's the big downside to joining the TA - you're putting your life and honour in the hands of professional politicians. (However, it also says 'many' reservists were deployed as 'individuals' rather than units - presumably meaning they were deployed by choice?) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Reserve_(United_Kingdom)#1988_to_2011:_Reduced_again_but_back_on_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Reserve_(United_Kingdom)#...
qiskit 5y ago
> "Queen’s enemies." I can't believe people still fight for royalty. Ants fight their queen's enemies. Free human being should fight for themselves, their families, etc.
- adewinter 5y ago
  Sure if you take the most hardcore literal interpretation. It's just short hand for "the enemies of the state" or "whoever my duly elected leadership consider to be the bad guys". Yes, people still willingly give up their independence for what they consider to be the greater good. Consider the entire united states armes forces and almost all government employees (in particular the folks who work for 3 letter agencies).
- jpgvm 5y ago
  It's not meant literally. Even in Australia our armed forces are still "Royal" but this is just a vestige of the past. i.e our ships are designated Her Majesty's Australian Ship (HMAS). What is means in practice is they fight for their country and its allies, just like any other military. While technically the Queen's representative in Australia (the Governor-General) is the chief of Australias armed forces (as defined in the constitution) this has never been used in practice (and would probably be ignored at this point).
  - qiskit 5y ago
    Then don't say it period. Also, isn't the british queen still the head of state of australia? Every time I bring this up, it's always australians, canadians, british, etc making excuses.
    - Handytinge 4y ago
      > Every time I bring this up, it's always australians, canadians, british, etc making excuses. Or, Australians, Canadians, British etc _explaining_ the nuance to you, because they understand it?
    - jpgvm 5y ago
inopinatus 5y ago
"Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians." — Sir Humphrey Appleby, Yes, Minister, March 1980.
Tepix 5y ago
While reading, that paragraph really stood out to me. Why would you even want a queen? It's an expensive relic of darker times. The whole idea of fighting for your life is completely alien to me. But then again i guess the people in Ukraine weren't expecting to be invaded for the longest time either. Humans are animals.
- jpgvm 5y ago
  The Queen basically serves as an extra head of state, a useful diplomatic figure and not much more. I don't think the UK monarchy is a net-negative but admittedly isn't all that necessary either. I come from a military town so my view may be different to some but I believe you need to be able to fight when you are threatened and to do that you need to be prepared. It's very hard to be prepared if you don't have a military and competent, motivated and well trained people to fight in it.
tetromino_ 5y ago
Or closer to more recent events, imagine signing a contract to defend your country from NATO or Chinese invaders, and then one evening receiving an order to kill your friends and relatives in Ukraine...

watwut 5y ago

Afaik, soldiers don't get to choose. The queens enemies is pretty much good description, because his guess is as good as yours.

giraffe_lady 5y ago
I don't think they were literally looking for an answer for this specific question, but pointing out how unsettling, at the very least, the lack of concrete answers is. Anyway if they won't say it I will: signing up to fight without knowing who or why you'll be fighting is morally compromised at the extreme very best. Modern economic powers like the UK do not use their militaries for self-defense. Someone able to write with his sophistication about the military knows what they use them for. In serving, and even in writing this piece of pro-military propaganda, he's supporting imperial violence.
- daedalus_f 5y ago
  > Modern economic powers like the UK do not use their militaries for self-defense. Modern economic powers have militaries and alliances that make attacking them unattractive. They have sufficient teeth to dissuade conflict. If you are fortunate enough to live in a Western democracy your safety and security is preserved by the actions of those who you call morally compromised.
  - giraffe_lady 5y ago
    Doesn't really matter for this purpose, I'm not arguing that the military is inherently wrong, or that military service is. I'm asserting that by far the most likely use of a wealthy nation's military is going to be a bad one. Encouraging people to join the military in that context is bad. People have an incredibly wide range of reasons for joining or supporting militaries, and I would absolutely not universally condemn all of them. Just this one. --- That aside, just because I benefit from something doesn't make it ok. What kind of first grader ethics is that?
    - daedalus_f 5y ago
      > I'm not arguing that the military is inherently wrong, or that military service is. Just that everyone who signs up for the military of a developed nation is morally compromised at the extreme very best. Can you square that statement with believing in the moral existence of a military for a developed nation? > By far the most likely use of a wealthy nation's military is going to be a bad one And yet, as I said, developed nations require a military for defence. The world is not a nice place, as Russia is current proving, and modern conflicts cannot be fought successfully with poor quality untrained troops recruited on the fly for a particular conflict, where those signing up know what they are going to be doing in advance. Developed nations therefore need a well trained standing army. In signing up for this army, people put their lives on the line, and in doing so protect you, me and others from harm. I do not consider doing this for that ideal morally compromised. You are right that nations have engaged in wars of aggression that should not have been fought. Living in such a nation I bear some of the responsibility for those wars, as do the soldiers who fought in those wars, but much less than the politicians and dictators who declared them for their own or their nations strategic gain in the first place. Unfortunately nice binary moral choices are few and far between. > That aside, just because I benefit from something doesn't make it ok. What kind of first grader ethics is that? My point was not to suggest that because you benefit from something that makes it ok, as you well know.
      - selectodude 5y ago
        >And yet, as I said, developed nations require a military for defence. The world is not a nice place, as Russia is current proving, and modern conflicts cannot be fought successfully with poor quality untrained troops recruited on the fly for a particular conflict, where those signing up know what they are going to be doing in advance. Developed nations therefore need a well trained standing army. Seriously, how do people miss this. The US Military is currently advising the Ukrainian armed forces while Germany has their thumb up their ass spending billions on Russian hydrocarbons. Unfortunately conscientious objection only works in the world we all wished we lived in. Somebody has to hold the guns and spend the money on this shit.
- throwaway675309 5y ago
  THANK YOU. it's amazing how this point seems to be lost on so many people, it would be one thing if I were able to contribute to a specific conflict or situation that I was ideologically aligned with... it's a completely different thing to sign away my life to the military and give them carte blanche to point me anywhere they choose.
ethbr0 5y ago
+1. Part of being part of a national military is subordinating your desires to the chain of command, which in a democracy usually flows to the highest elected official. If one wants to pick and choose "right" conflicts, one shouldn't serve. And ultimately... while I know HN has a pretty anti-authority bend... if you don't trust your government to deploy military power, what do you trust them for? Which isn't saying that uses of military power in reality are always right or justified, but is saying that effectively every other government power rests on top of its having the authority to use force to enforce compliance. And a military is a major component of that.
- rhn_mk1 5y ago
  Being subordinate didn't work for the Nuremberg "I was following orders" crowd, which makes me doubt your assertion. > if you don't trust your government to deploy military power, what do you trust them for? Do you have to trust them for anything? It's not like it's a viable option to decide that you don't want to designate any government as "yours". Good luck surviving in no man's land if you do. What makes government "theirs" for lots of people is just the threat of organized violence or exclusion.
  - adewinter 5y ago
    Hard to tell if you're just trolling or being serious. * Nuremberg and "just following orders" was about actual orders to specific individuals to do things that were literal war crimes, and those individuals carrying those orders out. One country designating another country an enemy is not, in fact, a war crime. >> Do you have to trust them for anything? I mean, yes? Even when you live in a libertarian fantasy land it turns out you need to have some level of trust in a government. You trust the road you're driving on won't collapse and that the folks at fire department know which end of the hose the water comes out of. You trust that because you trust that the gov that pays for that made the right choices. You can pretend you can have a society without relying on an organized collective of people who live in that society but I cannot logically see how that would work.
    - 5y ago
voakbasda 5y ago
Every soldier has the choice whether to follow or disobey an order of dubious legal/moral consequence. If you are asked to kill babies, you sure as shit had better say "no". As a species, there is broad agreement that "just following orders" is not a defense for committing crimes against humanity.
- monocasa 5y ago
  > A lot of people talk about Mỹ Lai, and they say, 'Well, you know, yeah, but you can't follow an illegal order.' Trust me. There is no such thing. Not in the military. If I go into a combat situation and I tell them, 'No, I'm not going. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to follow that order', well, they'd put me up against the wall and shoot me. ~ Lawrence La Croix, a squad leader in Charlie Company in Mỹ Lai
  - drran 5y ago
    Illegal/immoral orders can be silently sabotaged and reported later. Look at RF and Belarus. Russians are happy to kill Ukrainians, while Belarussians are wrecking Russian military trains. They received same orders.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      Only if the lower echelons of leadership are on board with sabotaging the orders. If they're not that's when you end up taking the "enemy fire" that back authorizes the use of force for the war crime.
      - watwut 5y ago
        Dude, they are illegal and are risking torture and jail of they will be caught. It is underground opposition doing those things.
        monocasa 5y ago
        That generally agrees with my statements.

amanaplanacanal 5y ago

I'ts likely whatever wild hair the politicians dream up. Which has always made that a "hell no" for me. Not willing to go murder people because some politician thinks it's a good idea.

scandox 5y ago

> At RubyConf 2014 someone in the lunch queue asked what I did before I was in tech and asked me if I enjoyed killing babies when I explained. To some extent your question is in the same category as the above. It decontextualizes the situation entirely. He lives in a democracy. He obviously believes that society is less worse than some visible alternatives. He therefore believes he can fight on its behalf based on what the democratic leadership determine. It's obviously possible for him to morally re-evaluate that at a later point: it might even cost him his life to do so. But his actions are morally considered whereas I think the question is morally thoughtless.

giaour 5y ago
I don't know if this was your intention, but your comment comes off as extremely dismissive. If you are joining a fighting force, you absolutely should consider where and how you might be deployed should your unit get mobilized. There is a tremendous difference between doing an active tour of duty in a foreign country and being called up domestically, and it is fine to use your own moral calculus when weighing the two. In the US, for example, part time opportunities are either in the reserves or the national guard, with the former having a foreign focus and the latter having a domestic focus. Plenty of guardsmen ended up doing tours in Iraq, but more recently, guardsmen helped staff overwhelmed medical facilities during the height of the pandemic.
- hitekker 5y ago
  It's fine to dismiss boring flamebait. The top-level comment is dressed up to sound curious but basically falls in the same category of questions that the GP and OP called out as thoughtless.
  - giaour 5y ago
    I think the top-level comment ("Might his squadron be called in to quash civil disturbance? Sent to the next Iraq? Is it reserved for defending the UK from invasion?") is exactly the kind of thing you should ask yourself when joining something like the Army Reserves. Everyone has some things they will not do, and it's important to figure out what those might be before finding yourself pushed to those limits. The thoughtless comments basically express the idea that no one should be in any military, whereas thoughtful questions acknowledge that not everyone has the same red lines.

Gadiguibou 5y ago

I was wondering exactly this. I see the author is still here in the comments and I'm curious to know how he feels about this. Does he get to choose whether he fights or not? Does he get reasonably and transparently informed about the issues leading to him being deployed? Having to fight or kill is not something one should consider lightly. It's a responsibility that very few should have to bear and hopefully you should be as informed as possible about why you're doing it when making the decision to bear that responsibility.

pjc50 5y ago

> Might his squadron be called in to quash civil disturbance? Sent to the next Iraq? Is it reserved for defending the UK from invasion? Yes, yes, and no. His own explanation mentions Peterloo! He joined the full time army during the Iraq war (although doesn't mention being deployed). This is evidently not something he's curious about. Ukraine has certainly highlighted the need for a defensive force. It's also made the question of whether all the fighting of the past 20 years has made the world safer or more dangerous - you could argue that Iraq re-established the precedent for aggressive war, and the fallout has made most of the muslim world less safe. Including Russia's war in Syria. Which they used as training for invading Ukraine.

InCityDreams 5y ago

He should fight the Grammar Nazi's: "A Hobby Gotten Out Of Hand"...very American(?), and terribly un-British.

michaelt 5y ago

According to [1] in 2004, when numbers were at their peak, reservists made up 20% of Britain's strength in Iraq; and 'large numbers' of reservists deployed in Afghanistan. Seems to me that's the big downside to joining the TA - you're putting your life and honour in the hands of professional politicians. (However, it also says 'many' reservists were deployed as 'individuals' rather than units - presumably meaning they were deployed by choice?) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Reserve_(United_Kingdom)#1988_to_2011:_Reduced_again_but_back_on_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Reserve_(United_Kingdom)#...

qiskit 5y ago

> "Queen’s enemies." I can't believe people still fight for royalty. Ants fight their queen's enemies. Free human being should fight for themselves, their families, etc.

adewinter 5y ago
Sure if you take the most hardcore literal interpretation. It's just short hand for "the enemies of the state" or "whoever my duly elected leadership consider to be the bad guys". Yes, people still willingly give up their independence for what they consider to be the greater good. Consider the entire united states armes forces and almost all government employees (in particular the folks who work for 3 letter agencies).
jpgvm 5y ago
It's not meant literally. Even in Australia our armed forces are still "Royal" but this is just a vestige of the past. i.e our ships are designated Her Majesty's Australian Ship (HMAS). What is means in practice is they fight for their country and its allies, just like any other military. While technically the Queen's representative in Australia (the Governor-General) is the chief of Australias armed forces (as defined in the constitution) this has never been used in practice (and would probably be ignored at this point).
- qiskit 5y ago
  Then don't say it period. Also, isn't the british queen still the head of state of australia? Every time I bring this up, it's always australians, canadians, british, etc making excuses.
  - Handytinge 4y ago
    > Every time I bring this up, it's always australians, canadians, british, etc making excuses. Or, Australians, Canadians, British etc _explaining_ the nuance to you, because they understand it?
  - jpgvm 5y ago

inopinatus 5y ago

"Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians." — Sir Humphrey Appleby, Yes, Minister, March 1980.

Tepix 5y ago

While reading, that paragraph really stood out to me. Why would you even want a queen? It's an expensive relic of darker times. The whole idea of fighting for your life is completely alien to me. But then again i guess the people in Ukraine weren't expecting to be invaded for the longest time either. Humans are animals.

jpgvm 5y ago
The Queen basically serves as an extra head of state, a useful diplomatic figure and not much more. I don't think the UK monarchy is a net-negative but admittedly isn't all that necessary either. I come from a military town so my view may be different to some but I believe you need to be able to fight when you are threatened and to do that you need to be prepared. It's very hard to be prepared if you don't have a military and competent, motivated and well trained people to fight in it.

tetromino_ 5y ago

Or closer to more recent events, imagine signing a contract to defend your country from NATO or Chinese invaders, and then one evening receiving an order to kill your friends and relatives in Ukraine...