4 ms·

Indeed, where would the Ukraine, Taiwan, or even South Korea be today if it weren't for the defense industry? Unfortunately the only way to achieve peace is to

by gwd 2y ago

Indeed, where would the Ukraine, Taiwan, or even South Korea be today if it weren't for the defense industry? Unfortunately the only way to achieve peace is to prepare for war. What I think what poisons the whole thing is a cultural attitude which poisons all of capitalism: the mantra that any company's job is to maximize shareholder value in any way that's legal (or worse, that they can get away with). Suppose there are two defense contacting companies. One has the attitude of, "War is terrible, and all of us should do everything we can to minimize it; but in the unfortunate event that war should become necessary, we want to be prepared to win it." The other has the attitude of, "Our job is to maximize shareholder value. We do that by selling more equipment and better equipment. We sell more equipment when that equipment is being used and/or destroyed, and we sell better equipment when there's a pressing need, like an ongoing war. So to maximize shareholder value, we should by any means we can get away with, encourage war, or at least or the threat of war." It's the unfortunate way that capitalism works that the second company will probably make more profit, which will give them more power and influence, which will then feed into more war, and will also put financial pressure on the first company to follow suit, and be more hawkish than they would perhaps otherwise be. So what do you do if you believe in pursuing peace but being prepared for war? Work with a company that is hawkish, and actually encourages war? Or refuse to work for any defense contractor at all?

somenameforme 2y ago
> Indeed, where would the Ukraine, Taiwan, or even South Korea be today if it weren't for the defense industry? Are you aware of what's happening in Ukraine today, or the history of South Korea [1] or Taiwan [2]? These aren't fairy tale stories where the "defense" industry came, brought democracy, and everybody lived happily ever after. South Korea went through decades of dictatorial and often brutal rule that only really ended, and turned into the sort of democratic Korea that we know in the 5th republic - formed in 1989! [1] The same is true of Taiwan, which was under martial law from 1949 to 1987! Both nations also engaged in absolute brutality against opposition interests, as a means of pursuing compliance, with things like the Bodo League Massacre in South Korea [3], or the White Terror [4] in Taiwan. By contrast we completely lost in Vietnam. And what awaited them? Well not much. There were no mass killings of collaborators or anything like that - that the West had predicted, though there were brutal "reeducation camps". But in general Vietnam just developed as its own independent nation. They were in no way whatsoever a e.g. Chinese puppet. They're the country that got rid of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, which had been supported by China. It's a great place to visit, and I'd recommend it to anybody. Also I think it's increasingly obvious that fertility rates are one of the most critical factors in society today. South Korea and Taiwan will not exist in the future simply because they are not even close to replacing themselves. Their fertility rates (0.55 and 0.85 respectively) make Japan, at 1.3, look like a nation of rabbits, by contrast. In other words South Korea and Taiwan are not sustainable nations, or people, unless something radically changes. Vietnam is struggling at 1.94, but that's a slow bleed decline - as opposed to the self decapitation path that Taiwan and South Korea are on. If these results are a consequence of the cultural shift that resulted from these countries "defense", then all we've done is sign a post-dated death warrant for these nations. I am very much a pro-capitalist person, but I'm also in no way whatsoever jingoistic about such. Not only is there room for many systems in this world, but many systems must be trialed. Because if it turns out that one system, which sounds good on paper, just leads to collapse - then a world with many different systems ensures that the overall impact is relatively minimal. ----- [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Korea [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan#Martial_law_era_(1949%E2%80%931987) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan#Martial_law_era_(1949%E... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_League_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_League_massacre [4] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Taiwan) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Taiwan)
- gwd 2y ago
  > Are you aware of what's happening in Ukraine today, or the history of South Korea [1] or Taiwan [2]? Nonetheless: 1. South Korea, and Taiwan right now are democracies (though flawed to varying degrees), and enjoy a higher standard of living and more freedoms than the neighbor who wants to "unify" with them; and that was true of the Ukraine before Russia invaded. (War tends to reduce your standard of living somewhat.) 2. If every competent engineer in "the West" (including the US, Canada, and Europe) suddenly left the defense sector, those countries would soon be invaded by their neighbors, significantly reducing their standard of living and their freedoms. > Also I think it's increasingly obvious that fertility rates are one of the most critical factors in society today. Not sure what this has to do with the proposition that "Preparing for war is necessary to achieve peace". > I am very much a pro-capitalist person Personally I think capitalism is pretty terrible: there are constant forces pushing power into the hands of fewer and fewer people, leaving more and more people wage slaves, and it takes Sisyphean effort and vigilance to prevent it. But so far everything else has been worse.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    "Right now" came decades after the "defense" industry was brought to these countries. So associating one with the other is not reasonable, even though that's what everybody does. What followed the "defense" interventions of these countries was decades of dictatorships, repressions, and purges. Of course you'd argue that the same is still happening in North Korea and I'd agree. But why? What is different in those countries? I think one interesting nuance is that the US has spent decades essentially trying to destroy North Korea, but all these decades of sanctions and economic/diplomatic warfare have done is weaken the people of North Korea. At some point I'm sure the idea was that suffering people would then revolt, but it should be obvious by now that instead suffering people tend to be more focused on just feeding themselves, and are far more inclined to rally around their government rather than side with the group working to starve them. Bringing wealth to North Korea would probably do far more to end the tyranny there than another century of sanctions would. And no, the idea that the "West" is going to be invaded is absurd. There's a reason since 1945 there's been zero major unrestrained wars between nuclear powers. As that era passes beyond conscious memory of our society, I think people forget how truly awful nuclear weapons are. One bomb in Hiroshima killed hundreds of thousands - instantly. And that was a tiny little bomb - 16kt. Modern tactical weapons (weapons intended for battlefield use) can have yields exceeding 100kt. Strategic weapons (weapons intended to end other civilizations) go into the thousands of kt. The strongest weapon ever tested being "Tsar Bomba" which had a yield of 55,000kt. You can't fight a war against an enemy with such weapons at their disposal. It simply doesn't work. For some modern contrast the "Mother of All Bombs / MOAB / GBU-43" that we detonated in Afghanistan was the largest conventional weapon ever fielded, weighed more than 20,000lbs and was 30+ft long. It had a yield of 0.01kt. Here [1] is what that looked like. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6rSxJnpGNg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6rSxJnpGNg --- The point of the fertility comments was about the fate of nations. Nations with catastrophically low fertility rates are dying and will die unless something changes, fast. So speaking of the health, or desirability of these nations, is inappropriate. It's akin to speaking positively of the health of somebody who has been diagnosed with terminal cancer.

by gwd 2y ago

somenameforme 2y ago

> Indeed, where would the Ukraine, Taiwan, or even South Korea be today if it weren't for the defense industry? Are you aware of what's happening in Ukraine today, or the history of South Korea [1] or Taiwan [2]? These aren't fairy tale stories where the "defense" industry came, brought democracy, and everybody lived happily ever after. South Korea went through decades of dictatorial and often brutal rule that only really ended, and turned into the sort of democratic Korea that we know in the 5th republic - formed in 1989! [1] The same is true of Taiwan, which was under martial law from 1949 to 1987! Both nations also engaged in absolute brutality against opposition interests, as a means of pursuing compliance, with things like the Bodo League Massacre in South Korea [3], or the White Terror [4] in Taiwan. By contrast we completely lost in Vietnam. And what awaited them? Well not much. There were no mass killings of collaborators or anything like that - that the West had predicted, though there were brutal "reeducation camps". But in general Vietnam just developed as its own independent nation. They were in no way whatsoever a e.g. Chinese puppet. They're the country that got rid of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, which had been supported by China. It's a great place to visit, and I'd recommend it to anybody. Also I think it's increasingly obvious that fertility rates are one of the most critical factors in society today. South Korea and Taiwan will not exist in the future simply because they are not even close to replacing themselves. Their fertility rates (0.55 and 0.85 respectively) make Japan, at 1.3, look like a nation of rabbits, by contrast. In other words South Korea and Taiwan are not sustainable nations, or people, unless something radically changes. Vietnam is struggling at 1.94, but that's a slow bleed decline - as opposed to the self decapitation path that Taiwan and South Korea are on. If these results are a consequence of the cultural shift that resulted from these countries "defense", then all we've done is sign a post-dated death warrant for these nations. I am very much a pro-capitalist person, but I'm also in no way whatsoever jingoistic about such. Not only is there room for many systems in this world, but many systems must be trialed. Because if it turns out that one system, which sounds good on paper, just leads to collapse - then a world with many different systems ensures that the overall impact is relatively minimal. ----- [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Korea [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan#Martial_law_era_(1949%E2%80%931987) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan#Martial_law_era_(1949%E... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_League_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_League_massacre [4] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Taiwan) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Taiwan)

gwd 2y ago
> Are you aware of what's happening in Ukraine today, or the history of South Korea [1] or Taiwan [2]? Nonetheless: 1. South Korea, and Taiwan right now are democracies (though flawed to varying degrees), and enjoy a higher standard of living and more freedoms than the neighbor who wants to "unify" with them; and that was true of the Ukraine before Russia invaded. (War tends to reduce your standard of living somewhat.) 2. If every competent engineer in "the West" (including the US, Canada, and Europe) suddenly left the defense sector, those countries would soon be invaded by their neighbors, significantly reducing their standard of living and their freedoms. > Also I think it's increasingly obvious that fertility rates are one of the most critical factors in society today. Not sure what this has to do with the proposition that "Preparing for war is necessary to achieve peace". > I am very much a pro-capitalist person Personally I think capitalism is pretty terrible: there are constant forces pushing power into the hands of fewer and fewer people, leaving more and more people wage slaves, and it takes Sisyphean effort and vigilance to prevent it. But so far everything else has been worse.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  "Right now" came decades after the "defense" industry was brought to these countries. So associating one with the other is not reasonable, even though that's what everybody does. What followed the "defense" interventions of these countries was decades of dictatorships, repressions, and purges. Of course you'd argue that the same is still happening in North Korea and I'd agree. But why? What is different in those countries? I think one interesting nuance is that the US has spent decades essentially trying to destroy North Korea, but all these decades of sanctions and economic/diplomatic warfare have done is weaken the people of North Korea. At some point I'm sure the idea was that suffering people would then revolt, but it should be obvious by now that instead suffering people tend to be more focused on just feeding themselves, and are far more inclined to rally around their government rather than side with the group working to starve them. Bringing wealth to North Korea would probably do far more to end the tyranny there than another century of sanctions would. And no, the idea that the "West" is going to be invaded is absurd. There's a reason since 1945 there's been zero major unrestrained wars between nuclear powers. As that era passes beyond conscious memory of our society, I think people forget how truly awful nuclear weapons are. One bomb in Hiroshima killed hundreds of thousands - instantly. And that was a tiny little bomb - 16kt. Modern tactical weapons (weapons intended for battlefield use) can have yields exceeding 100kt. Strategic weapons (weapons intended to end other civilizations) go into the thousands of kt. The strongest weapon ever tested being "Tsar Bomba" which had a yield of 55,000kt. You can't fight a war against an enemy with such weapons at their disposal. It simply doesn't work. For some modern contrast the "Mother of All Bombs / MOAB / GBU-43" that we detonated in Afghanistan was the largest conventional weapon ever fielded, weighed more than 20,000lbs and was 30+ft long. It had a yield of 0.01kt. Here [1] is what that looked like. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6rSxJnpGNg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6rSxJnpGNg --- The point of the fertility comments was about the fate of nations. Nations with catastrophically low fertility rates are dying and will die unless something changes, fast. So speaking of the health, or desirability of these nations, is inappropriate. It's akin to speaking positively of the health of somebody who has been diagnosed with terminal cancer.