3 ms·

Just curious. "Defense" in this article and in "DoD" is a euphemism for military, isn't it? I mean: these technologies (and the DoD) are perfectly capable of o

by cies 3y ago

Just curious. "Defense" in this article and in "DoD" is a euphemism for military, isn't it? I mean: these technologies (and the DoD) are perfectly capable of offense (attack). All while they prefer to call themselves "defense". This is just PR-speak right? A way to look good in the eyes of those who do not understand new speak?

hotnfresh 3y ago
You’re 76 years late to this party :-) (That’s when the US Department of War was renamed to the Department of Defense)
- msgilligan 3y ago
  It was “National Military Establishment” from 1947-1949. According to wikipedia, the new organizational structure was created in 1947. In 1949 it was renamed to “Department of Defense”. (I had just looked this up for my sibling response to parent)
msgilligan 3y ago
The US Department of Defense has had that name since 1949. From 1789 to 1947, we (USA) had a Department of War. “Defense” probably qualified as “new speak” at the time, but after nearly 80 years almost everyone understands what it means.
- hotnfresh 3y ago
  It’s also when we shifted to permanently having a large standing army. The generous reading of those events is that by the end of WWII it was clear that a “great power” wouldn’t have time to re-arm for the next big war, because the pace of war had increased so much and maneuver combined-arms warfare was both very effective and required far more training than older approaches, and “defense” reflects this shift to maintaining a large military apparatus even in peacetime. Less-generous readings of the events are obvious and common :-)
kube-system 3y ago
The DoD was named in 1949, after the end of an awful world war, and there were a lot of moves made to make sure something like that never happened again. Changing the name won't prevent war but maybe it'll remind some people why they show up to work. It's better to name things what they should be, rather than what they are criticized as being at their worst. Don't underestimate nominative determinism.
- cornercasechase 3y ago
  > It's better to name things what they should be, rather than what they are criticized as being at their worst. This is known as propaganda. The US has done nothing but go on the offense post-WWII. There was no “defense” in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan… those are all examples of US aggression and imperialism.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    There was no "defense" in Korea? There at least was defense of Korea.
    - cies 3y ago
      Department of other's democracy's defenses, because freedom. Murica.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    I think you’re missing my point. If you don’t think their actions back up their name, would you rather them work towards changing that, or would you rather them change their name?
    - cornercasechase 3y ago
      I’d rather they were completely defunded and by having a name that matches their actions that is more likely to get support. There is a reason the military goes to great lengths to whitewash their actions, they require at least nominal support from the citizens funding them.
FFP999 3y ago
[dead]
nunez 3y ago
Yes
MiscCompFacts 3y ago
“The best defense is a good offense”

by cies 3y ago

hotnfresh 3y ago

You’re 76 years late to this party :-) (That’s when the US Department of War was renamed to the Department of Defense)

msgilligan 3y ago
It was “National Military Establishment” from 1947-1949. According to wikipedia, the new organizational structure was created in 1947. In 1949 it was renamed to “Department of Defense”. (I had just looked this up for my sibling response to parent)

msgilligan 3y ago

The US Department of Defense has had that name since 1949. From 1789 to 1947, we (USA) had a Department of War. “Defense” probably qualified as “new speak” at the time, but after nearly 80 years almost everyone understands what it means.

hotnfresh 3y ago
It’s also when we shifted to permanently having a large standing army. The generous reading of those events is that by the end of WWII it was clear that a “great power” wouldn’t have time to re-arm for the next big war, because the pace of war had increased so much and maneuver combined-arms warfare was both very effective and required far more training than older approaches, and “defense” reflects this shift to maintaining a large military apparatus even in peacetime. Less-generous readings of the events are obvious and common :-)

kube-system 3y ago

The DoD was named in 1949, after the end of an awful world war, and there were a lot of moves made to make sure something like that never happened again. Changing the name won't prevent war but maybe it'll remind some people why they show up to work. It's better to name things what they should be, rather than what they are criticized as being at their worst. Don't underestimate nominative determinism.

cornercasechase 3y ago
> It's better to name things what they should be, rather than what they are criticized as being at their worst. This is known as propaganda. The US has done nothing but go on the offense post-WWII. There was no “defense” in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan… those are all examples of US aggression and imperialism.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  There was no "defense" in Korea? There at least was defense of Korea.
  - cies 3y ago
    Department of other's democracy's defenses, because freedom. Murica.
- kube-system 3y ago
  I think you’re missing my point. If you don’t think their actions back up their name, would you rather them work towards changing that, or would you rather them change their name?
  - cornercasechase 3y ago
    I’d rather they were completely defunded and by having a name that matches their actions that is more likely to get support. There is a reason the military goes to great lengths to whitewash their actions, they require at least nominal support from the citizens funding them.

FFP999 3y ago

[dead]

nunez 3y ago

Yes

MiscCompFacts 3y ago

“The best defense is a good offense”