3 ms·

(American here) I don't know anything about Palmer Luckey or Anduril, but I do believe in a strong national defense. As an individual, I can do approximately z

(American here) I don't know anything about Palmer Luckey or Anduril, but I do believe in a strong national defense. As an individual, I can do approximately zero to stop weapons from being used for offense, rather than defense. That is wildly unfortunate and tragic, but (false dichotomy incoming) I would choose that path for my country 100% of the time over being under-armed. "The strong do what they will while the weak suffer what they must." I can't recommend being weak so instead I will vote for being strong. All that to say: I am supportive and thankful that someone out there is actually innovating/delivering in this space and not just an MIC-parasite.

Pfhortune 2y ago
As posted in another thread, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_boomerang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_boomerang
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
vladgur 2y ago
Seeing what is happening in the world, I agree with you. While America does not have a perfect history and is not a perfect system, there is no other country in the world right now that i would rather have overwhelming military advantage over others. Not China, not Russia, Not any other country.
rendx 2y ago
If it was really all about non-lethal defense, weapons would look a lot different, and many current weapons would simply be banned, with anyone owning or employing such weapons getting forced -- by non-lethal force -- to give them up.
- nradov 2y ago
  You've got to be kidding. The notion of "non-lethal defense" is a naive fantasy.
- barnabee 2y ago
  Non-lethal defence does not seem possible at our current technology level. Keeping it about defence only rather than offense is a political problem, with the decision about what sort of weapons you acquire being influenced by the politics, not driving it.
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  Warfare is an inherently competitive endeavor. Which is going to win: an army armed with stun batons and pepper spray pitted against an army with machine guns, tanks, and artillery?
barnabee 2y ago
Sadly, I (not American) have to agree. I am a pacifist at heart, and I truly wish it wasn’t so, but it is impossible for any nation that believes in its continued existence [0] not to arm itself and maintain alliances with other like minded nations (including, regrettably, nuclear arms). I agree with the sentiment around demilitarisation, too. If everyone started getting rid of weapons there would, in many ways and for much of the time be less war and suffering. It feels right, compassionate, and empathetic. It’s what I would want. But it’s wrong. It only takes one national collapse, one coup, one crackpot dictator, one rogue leader to upend that and walk all over everyone. And we have far more than one, both nascent and incipient, at this point. This used to be somewhat untested in modern times, making it easier for loud anti-defence voices to be heard and acted on. But Ukraine is living that reality every day and Russia is far from the only would be aggressor. So yes, we need to build capable militaries and strong alliances, and we need work to promote a more stable world outside those alliances. At the same time we need to try, as hard as possible, to use our democratic power to prevent our nations and their allies overreaching with their military power, given that they must not surrender it. But the idea that any subset of nations can choose peace by not having weapons in anything like the world we inhabit is, unfortunately, dangerous wishful thinking. [0] Every nation believes this, regardless of its truth. We can (and should) evaluate the legitimacy and stability of a nation, alongside its governance when forming alliance, but all will rationalise their own existence (however poorly) and therefore their defence.

Pfhortune 2y ago

As posted in another thread, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_boomerang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_boomerang

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

vladgur 2y ago

Seeing what is happening in the world, I agree with you. While America does not have a perfect history and is not a perfect system, there is no other country in the world right now that i would rather have overwhelming military advantage over others. Not China, not Russia, Not any other country.

rendx 2y ago

If it was really all about non-lethal defense, weapons would look a lot different, and many current weapons would simply be banned, with anyone owning or employing such weapons getting forced -- by non-lethal force -- to give them up.

nradov 2y ago
You've got to be kidding. The notion of "non-lethal defense" is a naive fantasy.
barnabee 2y ago
Non-lethal defence does not seem possible at our current technology level. Keeping it about defence only rather than offense is a political problem, with the decision about what sort of weapons you acquire being influenced by the politics, not driving it.
Manuel_D 2y ago
Warfare is an inherently competitive endeavor. Which is going to win: an army armed with stun batons and pepper spray pitted against an army with machine guns, tanks, and artillery?

barnabee 2y ago

Sadly, I (not American) have to agree. I am a pacifist at heart, and I truly wish it wasn’t so, but it is impossible for any nation that believes in its continued existence [0] not to arm itself and maintain alliances with other like minded nations (including, regrettably, nuclear arms). I agree with the sentiment around demilitarisation, too. If everyone started getting rid of weapons there would, in many ways and for much of the time be less war and suffering. It feels right, compassionate, and empathetic. It’s what I would want. But it’s wrong. It only takes one national collapse, one coup, one crackpot dictator, one rogue leader to upend that and walk all over everyone. And we have far more than one, both nascent and incipient, at this point. This used to be somewhat untested in modern times, making it easier for loud anti-defence voices to be heard and acted on. But Ukraine is living that reality every day and Russia is far from the only would be aggressor. So yes, we need to build capable militaries and strong alliances, and we need work to promote a more stable world outside those alliances. At the same time we need to try, as hard as possible, to use our democratic power to prevent our nations and their allies overreaching with their military power, given that they must not surrender it. But the idea that any subset of nations can choose peace by not having weapons in anything like the world we inhabit is, unfortunately, dangerous wishful thinking. [0] Every nation believes this, regardless of its truth. We can (and should) evaluate the legitimacy and stability of a nation, alongside its governance when forming alliance, but all will rationalise their own existence (however poorly) and therefore their defence.