3 ms·

This is very bad. I feel like the military is meant to strive for the very highest standards possible because they are ultimately responsible for the most ethic

by rcarr 4y ago

This is very bad. I feel like the military is meant to strive for the very highest standards possible because they are ultimately responsible for the most ethically challenging job: determining whether or not to kill people. If you're going to justify that position then you need to be maintaining the highest possible standards as an organisation. The military will always house rotten apples because it's ultimately an organisation made up of flawed humans. But you would expect for them to be dealt with accordingly. But for something like this to be allowed to get to the state it has means that leadership is turning a blind eye. And if leadership is turning a blind eye to this then what else are they turning a blind eye to?

sizzzzlerz 4y ago
Absolutely. There is a whole chain of command that exists to operate these ships. I can't imagine that every link in that chain is corrupt and is willing to hide these kind of problems. If they are corrupt from bottom to top, our navy is simply the americanized version of putin's military.
- the_only_law 4y ago
  Seeing my father at the end of his military career and some of my brothers at the beginning of theirs, I’m convinced at this point much of military is a messy bureaucracy no better or worse than the DMV or any other government agencies people can’t stand.
solardev 4y ago
That seems like a flawed assumption. Has our military ever really stopped a battle or war because they thought it might be unethical? Do they ever even pause to ask that question? Does any military?
- HL33tibCe7 4y ago
  At the battle or war level, I don’t know. Someone else might be able to come up with an example. But militaries do make smaller-scale ethical decisions all the time, e.g: “do we attack this compound that could contain civilians”.
  - solardev 4y ago
    Isn't the answer usually some variation of "yes, we were ordered to/they shouldn't be there/they're the ones making the bombs/it's them or us/intel says blah/it's necessary/nobody will know/too weary to care". The possibility or certainty of collateral damage never seems to stop much, whether it's wedding guests or fellow car passengers or Osama's wives, it's always bomb first and hand wave it away later, or so it seems.
    - HL33tibCe7 4y ago
      No, that is not always the answer, in fact I’d suggest it’s usually not the answer.
      - solardev 4y ago
        Then I really hope it's just a case of the media reporting on civilian deaths, while most of the time they're avoided altogether and not newsworthy. Hopefully.
    - rcarr 4y ago
      In short, no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Red_Wings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Red_Wings
- tonightstoast 4y ago
  Has our military? Hopefully not many - it’s not up for them to decide whether or not to fire. But as Clausewitz says, “war is politics through other means”. If you want a specific example: Clinton’s administration chose not kill Bin Laden even though Delta Force had multiple opportunities. So I guess that avoided a war until 9/11.
- singron 4y ago
  The military doesn't decide whether we go to war. That kind of policy is left to the other parts of government when things work properly. However, they constantly make kill/no-kill decisions. E.g. choosing bombing targets or drone strikes.
- rcarr 4y ago
  Behind every bullet is a solider taking a decision to pull the trigger. Ultimately, regardless of the orders given by their superior, it is that person who decides whether or not to kill someone. If you want to see this in action, go read up on Operation Red Wings. Out of a four man Navy SEAL team, it ultimately cost three of them their lives because they took the ethical decision not to kill three Afghan civilians even though they (correctly) suspected that the civilians would report their whereabouts to the Taliban and compromise their mission. This is just one story of many. If you want to pretend the military is some black and white evil entity to help you sleep at night then go ahead. But it is simply not the reality. The reality is that it is a group of humans who each have to constantly weigh the tradeoffs of horrifically impossible decisions every single day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/when-can-a-soldier-disobey-an-order/ https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/when-can-a-soldier-disobey... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Red_Wings#Execution_of_the_operation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Red_Wings#Execution_...
drewcoo 4y ago
Almost a hundred years ago, a retired USMC Major General wrote a book . . . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

by rcarr 4y ago

sizzzzlerz 4y ago

Absolutely. There is a whole chain of command that exists to operate these ships. I can't imagine that every link in that chain is corrupt and is willing to hide these kind of problems. If they are corrupt from bottom to top, our navy is simply the americanized version of putin's military.

the_only_law 4y ago
Seeing my father at the end of his military career and some of my brothers at the beginning of theirs, I’m convinced at this point much of military is a messy bureaucracy no better or worse than the DMV or any other government agencies people can’t stand.

solardev 4y ago

That seems like a flawed assumption. Has our military ever really stopped a battle or war because they thought it might be unethical? Do they ever even pause to ask that question? Does any military?

HL33tibCe7 4y ago
At the battle or war level, I don’t know. Someone else might be able to come up with an example. But militaries do make smaller-scale ethical decisions all the time, e.g: “do we attack this compound that could contain civilians”.
- solardev 4y ago
  Isn't the answer usually some variation of "yes, we were ordered to/they shouldn't be there/they're the ones making the bombs/it's them or us/intel says blah/it's necessary/nobody will know/too weary to care". The possibility or certainty of collateral damage never seems to stop much, whether it's wedding guests or fellow car passengers or Osama's wives, it's always bomb first and hand wave it away later, or so it seems.
  - HL33tibCe7 4y ago
    No, that is not always the answer, in fact I’d suggest it’s usually not the answer.
    - solardev 4y ago
      Then I really hope it's just a case of the media reporting on civilian deaths, while most of the time they're avoided altogether and not newsworthy. Hopefully.
  - rcarr 4y ago
    In short, no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Red_Wings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Red_Wings
tonightstoast 4y ago
Has our military? Hopefully not many - it’s not up for them to decide whether or not to fire. But as Clausewitz says, “war is politics through other means”. If you want a specific example: Clinton’s administration chose not kill Bin Laden even though Delta Force had multiple opportunities. So I guess that avoided a war until 9/11.
singron 4y ago
The military doesn't decide whether we go to war. That kind of policy is left to the other parts of government when things work properly. However, they constantly make kill/no-kill decisions. E.g. choosing bombing targets or drone strikes.
rcarr 4y ago
Behind every bullet is a solider taking a decision to pull the trigger. Ultimately, regardless of the orders given by their superior, it is that person who decides whether or not to kill someone. If you want to see this in action, go read up on Operation Red Wings. Out of a four man Navy SEAL team, it ultimately cost three of them their lives because they took the ethical decision not to kill three Afghan civilians even though they (correctly) suspected that the civilians would report their whereabouts to the Taliban and compromise their mission. This is just one story of many. If you want to pretend the military is some black and white evil entity to help you sleep at night then go ahead. But it is simply not the reality. The reality is that it is a group of humans who each have to constantly weigh the tradeoffs of horrifically impossible decisions every single day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/when-can-a-soldier-disobey-an-order/ https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/when-can-a-soldier-disobey... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Red_Wings#Execution_of_the_operation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Red_Wings#Execution_...

drewcoo 4y ago

Almost a hundred years ago, a retired USMC Major General wrote a book . . . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket