5 ms·

>refuse to let their systems be used for war.. I don't want wars. But tell me, what would you like your country to do when conflicts arise due to want of natu

• fwip 8mo ago
  Personally, I'd rather that my country (USA) be taken over by China than bomb innocents in the Middle East.
  • queenkjuul 8mo ago
    Hear, hear
  • frogcoder 8mo ago
    Yes, there are many plus sides if USA were taken over by China. 1. You will see no protest on the street. 2. You will see no homeless on the street. 3. You will hear no more school shootings or any shooting. 4. No more tech companies conflicting with the government. 5. No one will sue the government because it's perfect. 6. All bad people will disappear. 7. Everyone sings praise of the government. This is better than Utopia, you should pursue it.
• senadir 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  • qsera 8mo ago
    If the country wage wars for bad reasons, that is another problem that probably should be fixed elsewhere, or you should leave that country and be somewhere who government you can fully get behind. > defending your country I am afraid that this does not always have to be an incoming attack. What if some country has a resource that your country badly needs, without which your people will suffer badly and imagine the same is true with the other country. How much of an hit on economic and QoL are you willing to sustain before you ask your government to go out there and get the required resource by force. I totally get that war is profitable, and most of the wars cannot be justified. But ideas like this sounds like sabotaging your own country and thus your own existence.
    • bad_haircut72 8mo ago
      What if your family didnt like bread, what of they liked - cigarettes? And instead of giving it away, you just sold it at a price that was practically giving it away?
• martinwright 8mo ago
  Your logic here is sound, sure. But don't tell me you can be so naive as to believe that the U.S. military is a defensive mechanism
  • qsera 8mo ago
    >But don't tell me you can be so naive as to believe that the U.S. military is a defensive I am not. Every country is corrupt, and war makes a lot of money for powerful people, but does it justify sabotaging your own existence?
    • mrs6969 8mo ago
      Literally yes. If you justify harming others out of nowhere by ‘sabotaging your own existence’ then yes. ‘Sabotaging your own existence’ is a magic sentence that can justify everything. Israel can kill children more than any other nation in the world, and justify it by ‘not sabotaging their own existence’ Anyone can do anything with this perspective. This is the exact point gere. Pull yourself back, if you are about to ‘not sabotage your own existence’ by simply killing innocent civilians because you believe a computer algorithm told you in about 15 years they or their children might do something harmful.
      • JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        > Anyone can do anything with this perspective Not really. Not unless one is thinking in absolutes, at which point one is by definition an extremist. The rational dialogue that emerges is the proper size of a military for defensive—but not continuous offensive—purposes. I’d guess, for America, that is half its current size at most. (The wrong answers are zero and $1.4tn.)
      • qsera 8mo ago
        Sure, any one can say anything. But I am not referring to that. I am talking about a case where it is objectively true. But I think that is a question that anyone would rather not consider. The issue is that if you don't consider that question, and jump into discussion or actions, in general just have an "outrage", then it would be very hard to take you seriously.
• gonzalohm 8mo ago
  Isn't the point of technology and engineering to find alternatives with the resources that one has?
  • qsera 8mo ago
    Yes, but it takes time. Like we have solar now. People talk about how it saves environment. But I think another similar win would be reduction in dependency on oil, and countries won't have to go to war over oil. But it takes time... But it seems what technology gives, technology takes away. Because new technologies comes with its own resource requirements. And the cycle looks like it will go on...
    • the_af 8mo ago
      > Yes, but it takes time. So be it. This doesn't excuse going to war with neighbors because you want to steal their stuff. Learn to live with yours.
      • qsera 8mo ago
        Learn? Can you learn to live without eating? Do you know what happens when an economy collapse?
        • the_af 8mo ago
          > Can you learn to live without eating? Would you murder your neighbor to steal their food? Especially if you weren't really starving, just preemptively stealing their supplies? All this talk of hoarding and taking resources by force used to be the stuff of villains. When did it become normalized?
          • qsera 8mo ago
            Have you ever gone through a whole a week without eating anything? Have you seen your kids go through that? If don't, then I will have to say you got no idea about what you are talking about..
• yellow_postit 8mo ago
  I am sympathetic to the argument that I’d rather elected officials that have a path to be removed have the control of use more so than unelected executives.
• paulhebert 8mo ago
  Most of America's recent wars have been unjustified. I think it's very reasonable to not want your products or work going towards making it easier for the US military wage unjustified wars. I also think it would be reasonable to change your stance on that if America entered a war that you felt was justified. (For example, I don't want to work for the military, but if we were being invaded I would consider it.) Saying the military can't use your tool _today_ doesn't prevent you from changing your mind _tomorrow._
  • dotancohen 8mo ago
    > I don't want to work for the military, but if we were being invaded I would consider it. Enlisting after your country had already been invaded is too late. An ancient proverb reminds us that if you want peace, prepare for war.