9 ms·

> Soldiers will need to go fight either way for defensive purposes and they need to be trained "Defensive purposes" is one hell of a creative license. You know

> Soldiers will need to go fight either way for defensive purposes and they need to be trained "Defensive purposes" is one hell of a creative license. You know it when soldiers "need to go fight" on the other side of the world "for defensive purposes". Or when a random someone enters your home with a gun "for defensive purposes". When was the last time a US soldier was called to arms to defend their own country? > can't any development environment be potentially used for ethically gray purposes? Any development can and will probably eventually be used as such. But while Facebook's "gray area" is siphoning and monetizing users' data, the US military's "gray area" is invading countries and killing a whole lot of innocent people in the process. So many that they have to threaten everyone else in the world with deadly action if they even try to look too closely. That's one soft definition of gray. Imagine the NSO Group claiming "software development gray area" to defend themselves. And with any military the moral/ethical objection will go far beyond that because no matter how the rules are followed, the main purpose of a military is to achieve things by threat or application of deadly violence. So a general objection to cooperating with the military complex will always have a solid foundation.

andsoitis 4y ago
> When was the last time a US soldier was called to arms to defend their own country? The right way to think about defending one's country is that it means "defends the interests of the country", which can include helping allies, keeping trade routes stable, etc. Good read: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-importance-of-u-s-military-might-shouldnt-be-underestimated/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-importance-of-u-s-mil...
- tyen_ 4y ago
  Sure, if you are into the whole imperialism thing.
- mythrwy 4y ago
  There is no clear limit to that expanded definition though.
  - zardo 4y ago
    Yeah, may as well do away with the concepts of offence and defence and just call it fighting.
- randomfinn 4y ago
  Would you also say that the Russian army is defending the country by invading Ukraine?
  - andsoitis 4y ago
    Good question. I think that if Russia stationed troops in strategic places (with those countries’ permission) and/or retaliated in response to an actual attack on their country, then yes. However, as far as I know, neither of those happened and the rationale I’ve heard reported is a mix of “that Land is really Russian land and Ukrainians are not a historically separate nation” or something like that. I think what is truly immoral is the cynical and barbaric targeting of civilians, seemingly systematically and not isolated incidents. My impression is that Russia isn’t doing this for defense reasons but rather for glory of the leader. What do you think?
    - thunky 4y ago
      You might have narrowed your own definition of "defend" before answering.
beebmam 4y ago
The people of the world, much less just the US, have a sincere interest in preventing terrorism. The functional elimination of Al Qaeda and ISIS are both two things people should be celebrating. Many countries are responsible for their elimination, and we're all better off for it. Unfortunately, both left and right wing propagandists are agitating to make you think it was unjustified to eradicate these two groups. Don't believe that garbage. These organizations genuinely believed that the entire world has been corrupted, including much of the Muslim world, and deserved the terrorism their groups inflicted.
- winReInstall 4y ago
  Eh, both are alive and well, and are just power projection tools, aka irregular forces for dirty local conflicts the big players do not want to be involved in. Terrorism it is only when the dog bites the lord who hunts.
- the_only_law 4y ago
  > have a sincere interest in preventing terrorism. Yeah that’s why China is sending people to camps out in Xinjiang. Also I’d love some cuttings on people defending ISIs and Al-Qaeda. The Taliban I could maybe believe, but ISIs is almost universally hated.
  - 8note 4y ago
    Isis was just doing the same thing america did to turn indigenous land into states. If they succeeded, there would be another minor power. Arguments against Isis are that they lost. Israel is doing the same thing, and is beloved by the west for it
arcticfox 4y ago
> the US military's "gray area" is invading countries and killing a whole lot of innocent people in the process Or, you know, being by far the largest reason (outside of the Ukrainians themselves) that Ukraine is able to protect itself from an evil war of aggression and not face Holodomor v2...https://www.statista.com/chart/27278/military-aid-to-ukraine-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/chart/27278/military-aid-to-ukraine... The Ukrainian "Saint Javelin" even has one of these training modes being discussed (I don't actually know if it was made using Unity, but it sure looked like it) Gray area.
- blub 4y ago
  Russia and Ukraine had many disagreements since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The moment that relations really took a turn for the worse was after Ukraine started flirting with NATO and to a lesser extent EU, at which point Russia took Crimea and tensions started in the East. Ukraine then continued to align and train with NATO, the Minsk accords failed and Russia invaded. At this point, our best understanding is that they wanted to enact quick regime change and re-align the country’s position to Russia. As to your reference to Holodomor 2, there’s no indication that they wanted to commit genocide or force a large scale famine. Russia’s actions in Georgia, Belarus or Crimea itself indicate the more likely fate of Ukraine. Of course the problem with an escalation spiral is that there’s no telling where it will end up. Still, considering that Ukraine’s allowing gas exports to transit their country and Russia’s allowing grain exports, the relation is not as hopeless as you make it seem. As for the US’s contribution to the Ukraine war effort, paradoxically, the US support and NATO courting them were likely an important trigger of the invasion. And the US support which enabled Ukraine’s resistance means that it’s now trapped in a spiral of violence with Russia that is tearing both countries apart. We can’t know what could have been, but looking at other neighbors of Russia’s an alternative reality where Ukraine remains corrupt, poor, in Russia’s sphere of influence but whole is not unlikely.
- 8note 4y ago
  Holodomor is some propaganda though. Everyone involved thought is was going do great things, and it failed because modernism wasn't as great as expected
- 4y ago
throwawayacc2 4y ago
> When was the last time a US soldier was called to arms to defend their own country? I am not american so maybe I am wrong but I believe it was Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 no? The justification, weather correct or not, was in both cases exactly what you said. To “defend their own country”. In Afghanistan to prevent further 9/11 style attacks from being committed against the USA and in Iraq to prevent WMDs from being used against the USA. The famous/infamous “do you want the proof to come in the form of a mushroom cloud?” bit. Again, weather the justification was correct or not is not what I am pointing out. I am pointing out in both cases, the USA called soldiers to fight “to arms to defend their own country”
- taken_username 4y ago
  How come US is the only country that needs military bases all over the world to “defend their country”? With your justification the Russia invasion is actually to prevent a future war with NATO. I am pretty sure one can justify any war that way.
  - ironick09 4y ago
    Well, no, the US is most certainly not the only country with military bases all over the world: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overs.... I know it’s easy to assume that because you normally only ever hear about the US army, I agree the US does have the largest number of overseas bases around the world, it’s not the _only_. NATO is a defensive organization. How does going to war with the Ukraine help Russia avoid confrontation with NATO when invading the Ukraine puts NATO members and arms length reach away dramatically increasing the chance of a full scale conflict with NATO? This argument doesn’t make any sense. Justify != right. Anyone can justify a war from their POV, see Russia -> Ukraine, US -> Iraq. It doesn’t make it any more right.
    - 8note 4y ago
      If you read through that page, a couple countries have bases in ~15 countries, and the US has ~50. There is a major difference in scale. NATO is kinda a for ensuring Ukranian independence. Minus NATO, NATO countries could get involved to help Ukraine, whereas they're currently limited by MAD
humanrebar 4y ago
> ...the main purpose of a military is to achieve things by threat or application of deadly violence. Are you against the U.S. military in particular or all militaries? This part makes me think the latter. I don't think it's all that controversial or ethically dubious to believe, in general, that militaries need to exist and that they therefore need to train their members on how to operate weapons. More specific arguments against particular militaries and particular weapon systems are more interesting. At any rate, some of the "things" that militaries achieve are good, necessary and, arguably, properly achieved by violence and the threat thereof. Such as protection from external threats of tyranny (surely we can all think of one contemporaneous tyrant with a military?). That means, I think, involvement in conventional weapons systems for some military can be fine. In the case of the U.S. military, I could see objecting in particular, but I wouldn't predict any real impact to U.S. foreign policy due to that sort of personal choice. The main benefit would be on a personal and, depending on the circles you travel in, social level.
- 8note 4y ago
  The US military is an imperial army is purpose is to ensure that Americans can profit from doing bad things to poor people. It also ensures trade between rich people, again so that Americans can profit from it. Imperial armies are both useful and immoral. It's not that it's american that makes it bad, its that it's job is empire
  - m0llusk 4y ago
    The US military was never large until European wars forced the issue thus causing among other things the end of the British Empire and the liberation of India. Do you really think that keeping India British would be a positive thing?
- buran77 4y ago
  I am not against any military, I understand their role in the modern world. I can also simply recognize the moral and ethical objections to collaborating with any of them. This being said, in the "civilized" world (the "us" in us vs. them) the US military went above and beyond when it came to providing extra reasons to have such moral objections.
kranke155 4y ago
You have a very reduced view of what defense means. When was the last time a US soldier defended his own country? In very direct manner, Afghanistan. Indirectly, US deployments in - Taiwan, Korea, now Poland, NATO itself as an alliance, as Ukraine proves beyond any doubt - maintain peace throughout the world. In this subject the populace is often misinformed while the political and military elites in the US are quite clear - US commitments all over the world maintain peace that allows for US hegemony in trade and other areas to dominate the world's economy. The US used to think it could be the world's most powerful country and "not get involved". That led to World War 2, and the idea died there. If the US "doesn't get involved", it will end up with another hegemon taking over Europe/Asia and lose its position at the top of the food chain. If that's what you want, go for it, cut the military budget. But when China and Russia turn the rest of the world into autocracies, you might find you made the wrong choice. The alternative to a strong hegemon that maintains peace is clear - it's chaos and wars of domination. The relatively small slippage in power that's happened in the last 20 years have led to an imperialist war in Ukraine. If you want to have that all over the world, go for it, cut the budget and complain about all military power being "wrong".
- dgb23 4y ago
  The most violent aggressor in the world is just "maintaining peace". If that isn't doublespeak then I don't know what is. WW2 didn't happen because the US got in late. It was much more complicated than that and driven by fascism and imperialism across the globe. It's hard to say whether anything could have prevented that war. We should be forever grateful for the people who fought back the fascists, internal and external. But you picked one of the few instances where it made sense for the US to go to war. Wars since the last century have become so destructive and violent that people will almost never support them except they are deceived or oppressed. The solution should not be "we do the killing for you under false pretense" but to put processes in order that are based on mutual agreement.
  - kranke155 4y ago
    You should read Henry Kissinger - but I imagine maybe you think he’s a war criminal? Give it 20 years and see. A close reading of world history seems to tell me - without a strong military dominating hegemon keeping the peace, you get war and chaos. The only war of aggression I can think of was Iraq. Vietnam was a war against an ideological enemy, wrong headed as it might have been, based off a flawed theory. I don’t consider the other wars as aggression because I don’t consider policing the world to mean you’re an agressor. The world needs policing.
tallanvor 4y ago
Elected officials decide where the military goes, so the criticism as to where soldiers are sent needs to be directed to the right place. And yes, there are certainly civilian deaths that are caused by the US military making the wrong decisions about how to achieve the objectives they've been given, but even then, they can't just refuse to do the job - that's the entire point of civilian control over the military.
jvanderbot 4y ago
Past mistakes of militaries does not mean militaries should be abolished. Just like past mistakes of police does not mean police should be abolished (they'd just be renamed to something else). You can be upset by past actions of the US military (or any) without calling for GP to quit his job. I would be happy in a peaceful world, but a world without defense capabilities is a world of helpless people, not peaceful ones.

andsoitis 4y ago

> When was the last time a US soldier was called to arms to defend their own country? The right way to think about defending one's country is that it means "defends the interests of the country", which can include helping allies, keeping trade routes stable, etc. Good read: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-importance-of-u-s-military-might-shouldnt-be-underestimated/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-importance-of-u-s-mil...

tyen_ 4y ago
Sure, if you are into the whole imperialism thing.
mythrwy 4y ago
There is no clear limit to that expanded definition though.
- zardo 4y ago
  Yeah, may as well do away with the concepts of offence and defence and just call it fighting.
randomfinn 4y ago
Would you also say that the Russian army is defending the country by invading Ukraine?
- andsoitis 4y ago
  Good question. I think that if Russia stationed troops in strategic places (with those countries’ permission) and/or retaliated in response to an actual attack on their country, then yes. However, as far as I know, neither of those happened and the rationale I’ve heard reported is a mix of “that Land is really Russian land and Ukrainians are not a historically separate nation” or something like that. I think what is truly immoral is the cynical and barbaric targeting of civilians, seemingly systematically and not isolated incidents. My impression is that Russia isn’t doing this for defense reasons but rather for glory of the leader. What do you think?
  - thunky 4y ago
    You might have narrowed your own definition of "defend" before answering.

beebmam 4y ago

The people of the world, much less just the US, have a sincere interest in preventing terrorism. The functional elimination of Al Qaeda and ISIS are both two things people should be celebrating. Many countries are responsible for their elimination, and we're all better off for it. Unfortunately, both left and right wing propagandists are agitating to make you think it was unjustified to eradicate these two groups. Don't believe that garbage. These organizations genuinely believed that the entire world has been corrupted, including much of the Muslim world, and deserved the terrorism their groups inflicted.

winReInstall 4y ago
Eh, both are alive and well, and are just power projection tools, aka irregular forces for dirty local conflicts the big players do not want to be involved in. Terrorism it is only when the dog bites the lord who hunts.
the_only_law 4y ago
> have a sincere interest in preventing terrorism. Yeah that’s why China is sending people to camps out in Xinjiang. Also I’d love some cuttings on people defending ISIs and Al-Qaeda. The Taliban I could maybe believe, but ISIs is almost universally hated.
- 8note 4y ago
  Isis was just doing the same thing america did to turn indigenous land into states. If they succeeded, there would be another minor power. Arguments against Isis are that they lost. Israel is doing the same thing, and is beloved by the west for it

arcticfox 4y ago

> the US military's "gray area" is invading countries and killing a whole lot of innocent people in the process Or, you know, being by far the largest reason (outside of the Ukrainians themselves) that Ukraine is able to protect itself from an evil war of aggression and not face Holodomor v2...https://www.statista.com/chart/27278/military-aid-to-ukraine-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/chart/27278/military-aid-to-ukraine... The Ukrainian "Saint Javelin" even has one of these training modes being discussed (I don't actually know if it was made using Unity, but it sure looked like it) Gray area.

blub 4y ago
Russia and Ukraine had many disagreements since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The moment that relations really took a turn for the worse was after Ukraine started flirting with NATO and to a lesser extent EU, at which point Russia took Crimea and tensions started in the East. Ukraine then continued to align and train with NATO, the Minsk accords failed and Russia invaded. At this point, our best understanding is that they wanted to enact quick regime change and re-align the country’s position to Russia. As to your reference to Holodomor 2, there’s no indication that they wanted to commit genocide or force a large scale famine. Russia’s actions in Georgia, Belarus or Crimea itself indicate the more likely fate of Ukraine. Of course the problem with an escalation spiral is that there’s no telling where it will end up. Still, considering that Ukraine’s allowing gas exports to transit their country and Russia’s allowing grain exports, the relation is not as hopeless as you make it seem. As for the US’s contribution to the Ukraine war effort, paradoxically, the US support and NATO courting them were likely an important trigger of the invasion. And the US support which enabled Ukraine’s resistance means that it’s now trapped in a spiral of violence with Russia that is tearing both countries apart. We can’t know what could have been, but looking at other neighbors of Russia’s an alternative reality where Ukraine remains corrupt, poor, in Russia’s sphere of influence but whole is not unlikely.
8note 4y ago
Holodomor is some propaganda though. Everyone involved thought is was going do great things, and it failed because modernism wasn't as great as expected
4y ago

throwawayacc2 4y ago

> When was the last time a US soldier was called to arms to defend their own country? I am not american so maybe I am wrong but I believe it was Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 no? The justification, weather correct or not, was in both cases exactly what you said. To “defend their own country”. In Afghanistan to prevent further 9/11 style attacks from being committed against the USA and in Iraq to prevent WMDs from being used against the USA. The famous/infamous “do you want the proof to come in the form of a mushroom cloud?” bit. Again, weather the justification was correct or not is not what I am pointing out. I am pointing out in both cases, the USA called soldiers to fight “to arms to defend their own country”

taken_username 4y ago
How come US is the only country that needs military bases all over the world to “defend their country”? With your justification the Russia invasion is actually to prevent a future war with NATO. I am pretty sure one can justify any war that way.
- ironick09 4y ago
  Well, no, the US is most certainly not the only country with military bases all over the world: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overs.... I know it’s easy to assume that because you normally only ever hear about the US army, I agree the US does have the largest number of overseas bases around the world, it’s not the _only_. NATO is a defensive organization. How does going to war with the Ukraine help Russia avoid confrontation with NATO when invading the Ukraine puts NATO members and arms length reach away dramatically increasing the chance of a full scale conflict with NATO? This argument doesn’t make any sense. Justify != right. Anyone can justify a war from their POV, see Russia -> Ukraine, US -> Iraq. It doesn’t make it any more right.
  - 8note 4y ago
    If you read through that page, a couple countries have bases in ~15 countries, and the US has ~50. There is a major difference in scale. NATO is kinda a for ensuring Ukranian independence. Minus NATO, NATO countries could get involved to help Ukraine, whereas they're currently limited by MAD

humanrebar 4y ago

> ...the main purpose of a military is to achieve things by threat or application of deadly violence. Are you against the U.S. military in particular or all militaries? This part makes me think the latter. I don't think it's all that controversial or ethically dubious to believe, in general, that militaries need to exist and that they therefore need to train their members on how to operate weapons. More specific arguments against particular militaries and particular weapon systems are more interesting. At any rate, some of the "things" that militaries achieve are good, necessary and, arguably, properly achieved by violence and the threat thereof. Such as protection from external threats of tyranny (surely we can all think of one contemporaneous tyrant with a military?). That means, I think, involvement in conventional weapons systems for some military can be fine. In the case of the U.S. military, I could see objecting in particular, but I wouldn't predict any real impact to U.S. foreign policy due to that sort of personal choice. The main benefit would be on a personal and, depending on the circles you travel in, social level.

8note 4y ago
The US military is an imperial army is purpose is to ensure that Americans can profit from doing bad things to poor people. It also ensures trade between rich people, again so that Americans can profit from it. Imperial armies are both useful and immoral. It's not that it's american that makes it bad, its that it's job is empire
- m0llusk 4y ago
  The US military was never large until European wars forced the issue thus causing among other things the end of the British Empire and the liberation of India. Do you really think that keeping India British would be a positive thing?
buran77 4y ago
I am not against any military, I understand their role in the modern world. I can also simply recognize the moral and ethical objections to collaborating with any of them. This being said, in the "civilized" world (the "us" in us vs. them) the US military went above and beyond when it came to providing extra reasons to have such moral objections.

kranke155 4y ago

You have a very reduced view of what defense means. When was the last time a US soldier defended his own country? In very direct manner, Afghanistan. Indirectly, US deployments in - Taiwan, Korea, now Poland, NATO itself as an alliance, as Ukraine proves beyond any doubt - maintain peace throughout the world. In this subject the populace is often misinformed while the political and military elites in the US are quite clear - US commitments all over the world maintain peace that allows for US hegemony in trade and other areas to dominate the world's economy. The US used to think it could be the world's most powerful country and "not get involved". That led to World War 2, and the idea died there. If the US "doesn't get involved", it will end up with another hegemon taking over Europe/Asia and lose its position at the top of the food chain. If that's what you want, go for it, cut the military budget. But when China and Russia turn the rest of the world into autocracies, you might find you made the wrong choice. The alternative to a strong hegemon that maintains peace is clear - it's chaos and wars of domination. The relatively small slippage in power that's happened in the last 20 years have led to an imperialist war in Ukraine. If you want to have that all over the world, go for it, cut the budget and complain about all military power being "wrong".

dgb23 4y ago
The most violent aggressor in the world is just "maintaining peace". If that isn't doublespeak then I don't know what is. WW2 didn't happen because the US got in late. It was much more complicated than that and driven by fascism and imperialism across the globe. It's hard to say whether anything could have prevented that war. We should be forever grateful for the people who fought back the fascists, internal and external. But you picked one of the few instances where it made sense for the US to go to war. Wars since the last century have become so destructive and violent that people will almost never support them except they are deceived or oppressed. The solution should not be "we do the killing for you under false pretense" but to put processes in order that are based on mutual agreement.
- kranke155 4y ago
  You should read Henry Kissinger - but I imagine maybe you think he’s a war criminal? Give it 20 years and see. A close reading of world history seems to tell me - without a strong military dominating hegemon keeping the peace, you get war and chaos. The only war of aggression I can think of was Iraq. Vietnam was a war against an ideological enemy, wrong headed as it might have been, based off a flawed theory. I don’t consider the other wars as aggression because I don’t consider policing the world to mean you’re an agressor. The world needs policing.

tallanvor 4y ago

Elected officials decide where the military goes, so the criticism as to where soldiers are sent needs to be directed to the right place. And yes, there are certainly civilian deaths that are caused by the US military making the wrong decisions about how to achieve the objectives they've been given, but even then, they can't just refuse to do the job - that's the entire point of civilian control over the military.

jvanderbot 4y ago

Past mistakes of militaries does not mean militaries should be abolished. Just like past mistakes of police does not mean police should be abolished (they'd just be renamed to something else). You can be upset by past actions of the US military (or any) without calling for GP to quit his job. I would be happy in a peaceful world, but a world without defense capabilities is a world of helpless people, not peaceful ones.