4 ms·

Personally, I don't get why people blindly reject any collaboration with the military. I understand that they are pacifists, but I still don't get it. When I lo

Personally, I don't get why people blindly reject any collaboration with the military. I understand that they are pacifists, but I still don't get it. When I look at history, I see so many tragedies caused by being weak. Both Germany and the Soviet Union were able to invade Poland, for instance, and the Katyn massacre is a national scar. And who wouldn't want to defeat invaders like Genghis Khan? Have you ever heard of the Yangzhou massacre or the Three Massacres of Jiading? Why would we let civilization succumb to barbarism? Don't get me wrong. I hate war. And never-ending wars like the Iraq War anger me to no end (and for that matter, I think G.W. Bush and his cabinet were truly evil). Of course, the danger is real; a military built for defense can easily become an instrument of tyranny or empire if left unchecked. That is why we must maintain rigorous civilian oversight and strict checks and balances over its power. But that does not mean the military, by default, is always evil, right?

rayiner 4mo ago
It's because Americans and many Europeans under the shield of the U.S. military and have never in their lives felt a moment of fear about external threats.[1] They never have to meaningfully confront the central fact of their existence: that they enjoy a vastly disproportionate share of the world's bounty in a way that would be impossible without overwhelming military power. I suspect people living in say Ukraine don't talk like this. [1] As I get older, I'm more sympathetic to Colonel Jessup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk.
- nixon_why69 4mo ago
  The Colonel Jessup character was guarding a fence in Cuba. Seriously. Cuba. Imagine hearing that sanctimonious speech about "the manner in which I defend you" and then you find out it's a fence in Cuba. There hasn't been an existential threat to the United States since the Civil War, and that one was self-inflicted. Obviously we need to maintain a military but 99% of what the current military does is either for economic goals or hollow national pride.
  - sevenzero 4mo ago
    Isn't every nuclear bomb an existential threat to all human life? How can one say there are no existential threats while countries people consider "The Enemy" have enough nukes to kill all human life multiple times? Also global warming is an existential threat. It's really telling how little people care about the world's problems not seeing their very own existence endangered.
    - nixon_why69 4mo ago
      All true, I meant threats in conventional military terms which our military and public rhetoric are all centered around.
      - sevenzero 4mo ago
        Yea I didn't consider the public rhetoric, good catch!
        nixon_why69 4mo ago
        Same to you, trust me I'd be happy if our thinking was more centered around avoiding the real catastrophes that you emphasized.
    - mastermage 4mo ago
      In the case of Global Warming its happening to slowly for most people to perceive it as threatening. Even though it massively is. For Nukes thats just a given nowadays, humans have a remarkable ability to adapt to constant threats. Not in the sense of being able to do something against it but to know it exists and not be terrified every single day. So many things can threaten human life that exist around us and yet we do not get scared after some time anymore atleast not constantly. Look at people living in Australia the entire ecosystem is basically a giant threat to anyone living there. Look at people living in earth prone regions of the world. People adapt and keep on living their lives. This is a fundamental human skill.
- watwut 4mo ago
  As in 2026 US army is not used for defense. It is used for offense and proudly so.
  - rayiner 4mo ago
    It wasn’t used primarily for defense in 1947 when it was renamed “department of defense.”
- impossiblefork 4mo ago
  In EU countries where war with Russia was seen as possible, for example, here in Sweden that is not the case. The military preparations this fear leads to take a very special form though: investment in actual defence, commitment to stay behind and fight in case on an invasion, that sort of thing. Obviously working on defence technology is part of this, but it also shapes the direction of the defence technology you work on. Sweden's forces have looked rather different from forces that intend to conduct offensive wars, especially historically. Tanks specifically designed for conducting ambushes are one example. Artillery emplacements designed to sink invasion fleets and to resist direct nuclear attack are another.
- cbruns 4mo ago
  The cold war and kids practicing sheltering under their desks never happened?
tristanj 4mo ago
I have thought about this a lot, and concluded that the peace we have today largely stems from all major powers having nuclear weapons, and leadership in each understanding that avoiding nuclear war is the utmost priority. All foreign policy choices are aligned to prevent military confrontation and avoid nuclear war. Thus there is an overemphasis to resolve disputes through diplomacy. But the plebeians do not understand this, they assume the peace today backed by nuclear weapons is genuine and permanent, they don't consider the nuclear weapons hidden underground, and advocate for policies like pacifism that do not reflect reality. This quote sums up the current situation: Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.
- floren 4mo ago
  Shocking how a quote from some 2016 novel now rolls around the Internet like it's fucking Aristotle
  - jon_adler 4mo ago
    "With great power comes great responsibility" - Spider-Man
  - ngcazz 4mo ago
    It sounds like something Steve Bannon realized in the shower before heading to the Oval Office.
- qnleigh 4mo ago
  Economic interdependence is also a big factor. If you depend on someone selling you things or buying them from you, you have a lot more to lose by invading them.
  - tristanj 4mo ago
    That's the Capitalist peace theory, proposed in 1795 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_peace_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_peace_theory It has some truth to it, but it doesn't survive looking at European history. In 1913 Germany and Britain were each other's largest trading partners, but a year later they ended up fighting each other in WWI. They fought again in WWII. Nuclear deterrence is a better explanation of post-WWII peace.
tastyface 4mo ago
I can't speak for anyone else, but as a Christian, it's really quite simple: any death that you help cause is a black mark on your soul. Maybe you can repent for it, someday. But it's not something that will just be let go when the day of reckoning comes. Incidentally, I'd feel the same way about killing someone in self-defense.
- Ferret7446 4mo ago
  What if avoiding causing a death instead results in thousands of deaths? Do you give yourself a moral high five and stick your head in the sand?
  - tastyface 4mo ago
    That is not my call to make. In a life-or-death situation, maybe a Christian could make the decision to take another life, then spend the rest of their life burdened by the guilt and sorrow of breaking the unambiguous 6th Commandment. There is room for repentance in this context. That is *far* from the reality of the "defense" industry, however. Making widgets so that some dude at a computer terminal has an easier time drone-striking buildings full of kids halfway across the world is, essentially, evil.
- hhjinks 4mo ago
  I thought accepting and believing in Jesus as Lord was all you needed to enter heaven? John 6:40 (KJV) 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
  - emodendroket 4mo ago
    Do you honestly think you're raising a novel point and not just being trite? If so, try reading Luther's Concerning Christian Liberty, where he dispenses with this argument. Or if you want a short version of what he says, if you just claim to "believe in" God but that doesn't affect your behavior in any way, then you don't really believe.
aakresearch 4mo ago
Indeed, I hear you 100%. It may be painful to watch "your" military engage in wars that are not righteous, from one's perspective. Are there even "righteous" conflicts these days? But short of demand to abolish all state military, what is appropriate way to express one's indignation? Hopefully all can agree that such demand would be insane; but why, then, those "pacifist" performances, which effectively are calls to deprive military of the best weapons, people, thoughts, strategies, are not considered insane? Agree or disagree with particular foreign policy or military action, why do people forget that the bulk of military is staffed with their fellow citizens? Many of whom aren't terribly privileged to enjoy ample alternative choices to elevate themselves socially or financially. It is exactly this lot who benefits the most from DEI policies, cherished by "pacifists", is it not? It is them who are the first and most massive direct casualties, caused by not having access to the best, superior materiel, doctrine and training on and beyond the battlefield. I'll be the first to point that military and paramilitary forces attract many with unchecked lust for violence. That "pride", "honor" and "patriotism" are often terribly misused, to uphold goals of those with impure, malicious ambitions. Who, I grant it, also disproportionately represented in the command echelons of military and beyond. But if we are honest, that scum won't be shaken or taught a lesson by SotA technology being withheld from their use or corporation refusing cooperation. It is their subordinates, who, maybe naively, subscribe to "ideal", unquoted interpretation of Pride, Honor and Patriotism, will bear the brunt of being crippled (by the consequences of the withholding and refusal) on the battlefield, and pay with their lives. Don't their lives matter?
ngcazz 4mo ago
This is an academic point. The US represents one third of the world's military spending because it uses force to further the economic interests of the elite. To work in a "defense" supplier is to support this.
emodendroket 4mo ago
> When I look at history, I see so many tragedies caused by being weak. Both Germany and the Soviet Union were able to invade Poland, for instance, and the Katyn massacre is a national scar. And who wouldn't want to defeat invaders like Genghis Khan? Have you ever heard of the Yangzhou massacre or the Three Massacres of Jiading? Why would we let civilization succumb to barbarism? Well, what if people had refused to lend their talents to Hitler or Genghis Khan?
- laughing_man 4mo ago
  What if you're on the receiving end and don't get a choice?
  - emodendroket 4mo ago
    Yes, that was already the first scenario presented. I was presenting a different one to help you understand how someone could reach the opposite conclusion.
  - 1dontnkow_ 4mo ago
    I don't wanna say but some people decide to do the unthinkable and that's how boulevards are filled with statues. You always have a choice, they just all suck. There were quite some that refused due to principles and beliefs, but I guess not enough, and when there are not enough the first sacrificed for nothing. Some places for other evil ideas that didn't reach global size, it means enough people stood up and they won. Whats the formula? I guess nobody knows.
impossiblefork 4mo ago
Presumably they reject it because they see the military used offensively?
NicuCalcea 4mo ago
In this specific instance, this is the military of a country different from the one of the author. A country that is increasingly hostile towards its allies and does weird shit on the international stage that is difficult to justify.
- econ 4mo ago
  Weird shit is just by lack of cosy cover story. Each military operation has a cool story in advance and a different cool story afterwards. Neither is ever true and if someone finds out the "truth" it usually isn't even half the story. Usually if you go back far enough there is some guy with an obviously stupid idea. It then takes effort to keep the stupid idea alive and side shows become the main act.
nnettbe 4mo ago
The author may agree with you. They write: > strictly defensive action is somewhat different
1dontnkow_ 4mo ago
Because most other countries don't even have a quarter of the military and resources the US has and there its usually about survival and defense of their borders with direct neighbors or at worst case region. But with the US military, at least the years I was alive, it seemed to be never a real national security threat at the borders but very far away and for so not obvious reasons. In the end however I agree with your "defense is necessary" and that's why NATO exists and should be developed further so its more strict and almost all nations worldwide join.
econ 4mo ago
>Personally, I don't get why people blindly reject any collaboration with the military If you don't understand don't call it blindly. If the country doesn't align with your world view at all there is no reason to fight for its military. Let those who like it the way it is do the fighting. If it is the complete opposite of what you would like you should fight against it. Aggression should scale with how offended you are. Why would you blindly cooperate with some military?

rayiner 4mo ago

It's because Americans and many Europeans under the shield of the U.S. military and have never in their lives felt a moment of fear about external threats.[1] They never have to meaningfully confront the central fact of their existence: that they enjoy a vastly disproportionate share of the world's bounty in a way that would be impossible without overwhelming military power. I suspect people living in say Ukraine don't talk like this. [1] As I get older, I'm more sympathetic to Colonel Jessup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FnO3igOkOk.

nixon_why69 4mo ago
The Colonel Jessup character was guarding a fence in Cuba. Seriously. Cuba. Imagine hearing that sanctimonious speech about "the manner in which I defend you" and then you find out it's a fence in Cuba. There hasn't been an existential threat to the United States since the Civil War, and that one was self-inflicted. Obviously we need to maintain a military but 99% of what the current military does is either for economic goals or hollow national pride.
- sevenzero 4mo ago
  Isn't every nuclear bomb an existential threat to all human life? How can one say there are no existential threats while countries people consider "The Enemy" have enough nukes to kill all human life multiple times? Also global warming is an existential threat. It's really telling how little people care about the world's problems not seeing their very own existence endangered.
  - nixon_why69 4mo ago
    All true, I meant threats in conventional military terms which our military and public rhetoric are all centered around.
    - sevenzero 4mo ago
      Yea I didn't consider the public rhetoric, good catch!
      - nixon_why69 4mo ago
        Same to you, trust me I'd be happy if our thinking was more centered around avoiding the real catastrophes that you emphasized.
  - mastermage 4mo ago
    In the case of Global Warming its happening to slowly for most people to perceive it as threatening. Even though it massively is. For Nukes thats just a given nowadays, humans have a remarkable ability to adapt to constant threats. Not in the sense of being able to do something against it but to know it exists and not be terrified every single day. So many things can threaten human life that exist around us and yet we do not get scared after some time anymore atleast not constantly. Look at people living in Australia the entire ecosystem is basically a giant threat to anyone living there. Look at people living in earth prone regions of the world. People adapt and keep on living their lives. This is a fundamental human skill.
watwut 4mo ago
As in 2026 US army is not used for defense. It is used for offense and proudly so.
- rayiner 4mo ago
  It wasn’t used primarily for defense in 1947 when it was renamed “department of defense.”
impossiblefork 4mo ago
In EU countries where war with Russia was seen as possible, for example, here in Sweden that is not the case. The military preparations this fear leads to take a very special form though: investment in actual defence, commitment to stay behind and fight in case on an invasion, that sort of thing. Obviously working on defence technology is part of this, but it also shapes the direction of the defence technology you work on. Sweden's forces have looked rather different from forces that intend to conduct offensive wars, especially historically. Tanks specifically designed for conducting ambushes are one example. Artillery emplacements designed to sink invasion fleets and to resist direct nuclear attack are another.
cbruns 4mo ago
The cold war and kids practicing sheltering under their desks never happened?

tristanj 4mo ago

I have thought about this a lot, and concluded that the peace we have today largely stems from all major powers having nuclear weapons, and leadership in each understanding that avoiding nuclear war is the utmost priority. All foreign policy choices are aligned to prevent military confrontation and avoid nuclear war. Thus there is an overemphasis to resolve disputes through diplomacy. But the plebeians do not understand this, they assume the peace today backed by nuclear weapons is genuine and permanent, they don't consider the nuclear weapons hidden underground, and advocate for policies like pacifism that do not reflect reality. This quote sums up the current situation: Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.

floren 4mo ago
Shocking how a quote from some 2016 novel now rolls around the Internet like it's fucking Aristotle
- jon_adler 4mo ago
  "With great power comes great responsibility" - Spider-Man
- ngcazz 4mo ago
  It sounds like something Steve Bannon realized in the shower before heading to the Oval Office.
qnleigh 4mo ago
Economic interdependence is also a big factor. If you depend on someone selling you things or buying them from you, you have a lot more to lose by invading them.
- tristanj 4mo ago
  That's the Capitalist peace theory, proposed in 1795 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_peace_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_peace_theory It has some truth to it, but it doesn't survive looking at European history. In 1913 Germany and Britain were each other's largest trading partners, but a year later they ended up fighting each other in WWI. They fought again in WWII. Nuclear deterrence is a better explanation of post-WWII peace.

tastyface 4mo ago

I can't speak for anyone else, but as a Christian, it's really quite simple: any death that you help cause is a black mark on your soul. Maybe you can repent for it, someday. But it's not something that will just be let go when the day of reckoning comes. Incidentally, I'd feel the same way about killing someone in self-defense.

Ferret7446 4mo ago
What if avoiding causing a death instead results in thousands of deaths? Do you give yourself a moral high five and stick your head in the sand?
- tastyface 4mo ago
  That is not my call to make. In a life-or-death situation, maybe a Christian could make the decision to take another life, then spend the rest of their life burdened by the guilt and sorrow of breaking the unambiguous 6th Commandment. There is room for repentance in this context. That is *far* from the reality of the "defense" industry, however. Making widgets so that some dude at a computer terminal has an easier time drone-striking buildings full of kids halfway across the world is, essentially, evil.
hhjinks 4mo ago
I thought accepting and believing in Jesus as Lord was all you needed to enter heaven? John 6:40 (KJV) 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
- emodendroket 4mo ago
  Do you honestly think you're raising a novel point and not just being trite? If so, try reading Luther's Concerning Christian Liberty, where he dispenses with this argument. Or if you want a short version of what he says, if you just claim to "believe in" God but that doesn't affect your behavior in any way, then you don't really believe.

aakresearch 4mo ago

Indeed, I hear you 100%. It may be painful to watch "your" military engage in wars that are not righteous, from one's perspective. Are there even "righteous" conflicts these days? But short of demand to abolish all state military, what is appropriate way to express one's indignation? Hopefully all can agree that such demand would be insane; but why, then, those "pacifist" performances, which effectively are calls to deprive military of the best weapons, people, thoughts, strategies, are not considered insane? Agree or disagree with particular foreign policy or military action, why do people forget that the bulk of military is staffed with their fellow citizens? Many of whom aren't terribly privileged to enjoy ample alternative choices to elevate themselves socially or financially. It is exactly this lot who benefits the most from DEI policies, cherished by "pacifists", is it not? It is them who are the first and most massive direct casualties, caused by not having access to the best, superior materiel, doctrine and training on and beyond the battlefield. I'll be the first to point that military and paramilitary forces attract many with unchecked lust for violence. That "pride", "honor" and "patriotism" are often terribly misused, to uphold goals of those with impure, malicious ambitions. Who, I grant it, also disproportionately represented in the command echelons of military and beyond. But if we are honest, that scum won't be shaken or taught a lesson by SotA technology being withheld from their use or corporation refusing cooperation. It is their subordinates, who, maybe naively, subscribe to "ideal", unquoted interpretation of Pride, Honor and Patriotism, will bear the brunt of being crippled (by the consequences of the withholding and refusal) on the battlefield, and pay with their lives. Don't their lives matter?

ngcazz 4mo ago

This is an academic point. The US represents one third of the world's military spending because it uses force to further the economic interests of the elite. To work in a "defense" supplier is to support this.

emodendroket 4mo ago

> When I look at history, I see so many tragedies caused by being weak. Both Germany and the Soviet Union were able to invade Poland, for instance, and the Katyn massacre is a national scar. And who wouldn't want to defeat invaders like Genghis Khan? Have you ever heard of the Yangzhou massacre or the Three Massacres of Jiading? Why would we let civilization succumb to barbarism? Well, what if people had refused to lend their talents to Hitler or Genghis Khan?

laughing_man 4mo ago
What if you're on the receiving end and don't get a choice?
- emodendroket 4mo ago
  Yes, that was already the first scenario presented. I was presenting a different one to help you understand how someone could reach the opposite conclusion.
- 1dontnkow_ 4mo ago
  I don't wanna say but some people decide to do the unthinkable and that's how boulevards are filled with statues. You always have a choice, they just all suck. There were quite some that refused due to principles and beliefs, but I guess not enough, and when there are not enough the first sacrificed for nothing. Some places for other evil ideas that didn't reach global size, it means enough people stood up and they won. Whats the formula? I guess nobody knows.

impossiblefork 4mo ago

Presumably they reject it because they see the military used offensively?

NicuCalcea 4mo ago

In this specific instance, this is the military of a country different from the one of the author. A country that is increasingly hostile towards its allies and does weird shit on the international stage that is difficult to justify.

econ 4mo ago
Weird shit is just by lack of cosy cover story. Each military operation has a cool story in advance and a different cool story afterwards. Neither is ever true and if someone finds out the "truth" it usually isn't even half the story. Usually if you go back far enough there is some guy with an obviously stupid idea. It then takes effort to keep the stupid idea alive and side shows become the main act.

nnettbe 4mo ago

The author may agree with you. They write: > strictly defensive action is somewhat different

1dontnkow_ 4mo ago

Because most other countries don't even have a quarter of the military and resources the US has and there its usually about survival and defense of their borders with direct neighbors or at worst case region. But with the US military, at least the years I was alive, it seemed to be never a real national security threat at the borders but very far away and for so not obvious reasons. In the end however I agree with your "defense is necessary" and that's why NATO exists and should be developed further so its more strict and almost all nations worldwide join.

econ 4mo ago

>Personally, I don't get why people blindly reject any collaboration with the military If you don't understand don't call it blindly. If the country doesn't align with your world view at all there is no reason to fight for its military. Let those who like it the way it is do the fighting. If it is the complete opposite of what you would like you should fight against it. Aggression should scale with how offended you are. Why would you blindly cooperate with some military?