3 ms·

> You might make less money, but you'll almost certainly sleep easier Idk, there's something unethical in outsourcing ethical grey areas to other people while

> You might make less money, but you'll almost certainly sleep easier Idk, there's something unethical in outsourcing ethical grey areas to other people while reaping the benefits of the peace (or war far from your home) it brings. Predatory monsters exist. A wealthy society that demilitarizes learns the lesson Europe is now. (If Ukraine didn't have a domestic defence industry, it wouldn't have been able to fight the fight it has been able to.) Put another way, you'll sleep easier, but it's a false security, even if it's one that may last for the rest of your own life. I'd also note that you can absolutely contribute to parts of the military where you actions are highly unlikely to directly result in anyone dying. Air-defence radars and munitions, for example, particulalry those designed to take out missiles and ballistics.

sophacles 2mo ago
You're not responding to their actual comment, you're arguing something else. As for "someone else will do it if i don't".... (aka your argument). That's true of a lot of things, and I sleep great at night choosing not to steal from people even though I know others will choose to steal. It turns out I don't have the ability to choose their actions for them, only my own.
- Ajedi32 2mo ago
  > "someone else will do it if i don't".... (aka your argument) That's not the argument. It's more like "if I don't do it then I better hope somebody else will, otherwise my whole country will inevitably become subservient to a despotic regime". Basically, the question is whether strict pacifism is a tenable national policy in the real world. All of modern and ancient history up to this point seems to suggest it is not.
  - slg 2mo ago
    Would you define Russia not nuking Ukraine as "strict pacifism"? Because every modern country and army seems to have some basic standard of ethics and morals that restrict them from waging total war even if you want to argue that's purely for diplomatic or PR reasons. There are a whole lot of decisions that need to be made to get from "strict pacifism" to total war, so I don't know why we need to flatten this into a binary.
    - JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
      > Would you define Russia not nuking Ukraine as "strict pacifism"? Nobody reasonable would. Russia started a war of choice. That's the opposite of pacifism. Strict pacifism would be Ukraine refusing to fight after being invaded. Someone saying all war in all circumtances is evil and should not be contributed to, directly or indirectly, is sort of endorsing that view. The folks calling for nuclear disarmament, or no first use policy, are pretty far away from that.
      - slg 2mo ago
        >Nobody reasonable would. Russia started a war of choice. That's the opposite of pacifism. Yes, that was my point. The person I replied to stated a nation taking actions off the table "will inevitably become subservient to a despotic regime". As a response, I pointed to a country that many would call "a despotic regime" who seems to operate with at least some consideration towards the ethics of war even if that is due to external pressure.
        s1artibartfast 2mo ago
        Maybe I'm slow , but how is that relevant to the point? Can you expand? Am I understand is that defense is important because sooner or later someone else may choose aggression. You might put your life savings on the street in front of your house for a day or two without someone stealing it, but sooner or later someone unscrupulous is likely to come along based on the evidence we have
        slg 2mo ago
        The person I replied to stated that a country refusing to develop military tech for moral reasons was destined to fall to a country that ignores morals and develops that tech. I pointed to an example of an aggressor nation that is refusing to use all the military tech at its disposal. Modern society has decided that ethics don't go completely out the window in war and by and large nation states at least pretend they agree.
  - s1artibartfast 2mo ago
    I think the better argument is that Europe has a credible nuclear defense, therefore they don't need conventional military. If Russia starts rolling tanks towards Berlin, drop a nuke outside their international waters and announce the next one will be on Moscow
    - nradov 2mo ago
      How about if Russia starts sending troops to "protect" the ethnic Russian population in Latvia? Would the USA, UK, and/or France really threaten to nuke Moscow and start WW3 in that scenario? It's better to have a credible conventional deterrent and a range of possible responses instead of betting everything on an all-or-nothing nuclear response.
      - LargoLasskhyfv 2mo ago
        What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied instead? I've found that to be rather entertaining, when the 1st season began. Though only the pilot and 1st few episodes. What came later was just so-so. Enjoy.
      - s1artibartfast 2mo ago
        I dont think they would, but think it would work if they did
        nradov 2mo ago
        Small comfort to countries on the Russian border.
megous 2mo ago
Dunno where the idea that defence or defensive weapons are somehow morally better comes from. It really depends on who's using them and what they're used to defend.
- JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
  > where the idea that defence or defensive weapons are somehow morally better comes from As a category, I think it's safe to say that defensive weapons tend to be more morally defensible than purely-offensive ones. Of course the circumstances matter. But that doesn't mean we can't make generalisations.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]

sophacles 2mo ago

You're not responding to their actual comment, you're arguing something else. As for "someone else will do it if i don't".... (aka your argument). That's true of a lot of things, and I sleep great at night choosing not to steal from people even though I know others will choose to steal. It turns out I don't have the ability to choose their actions for them, only my own.

Ajedi32 2mo ago
> "someone else will do it if i don't".... (aka your argument) That's not the argument. It's more like "if I don't do it then I better hope somebody else will, otherwise my whole country will inevitably become subservient to a despotic regime". Basically, the question is whether strict pacifism is a tenable national policy in the real world. All of modern and ancient history up to this point seems to suggest it is not.
- slg 2mo ago
  Would you define Russia not nuking Ukraine as "strict pacifism"? Because every modern country and army seems to have some basic standard of ethics and morals that restrict them from waging total war even if you want to argue that's purely for diplomatic or PR reasons. There are a whole lot of decisions that need to be made to get from "strict pacifism" to total war, so I don't know why we need to flatten this into a binary.
  - JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
    > Would you define Russia not nuking Ukraine as "strict pacifism"? Nobody reasonable would. Russia started a war of choice. That's the opposite of pacifism. Strict pacifism would be Ukraine refusing to fight after being invaded. Someone saying all war in all circumtances is evil and should not be contributed to, directly or indirectly, is sort of endorsing that view. The folks calling for nuclear disarmament, or no first use policy, are pretty far away from that.
    - slg 2mo ago
      >Nobody reasonable would. Russia started a war of choice. That's the opposite of pacifism. Yes, that was my point. The person I replied to stated a nation taking actions off the table "will inevitably become subservient to a despotic regime". As a response, I pointed to a country that many would call "a despotic regime" who seems to operate with at least some consideration towards the ethics of war even if that is due to external pressure.
      - s1artibartfast 2mo ago
        Maybe I'm slow , but how is that relevant to the point? Can you expand? Am I understand is that defense is important because sooner or later someone else may choose aggression. You might put your life savings on the street in front of your house for a day or two without someone stealing it, but sooner or later someone unscrupulous is likely to come along based on the evidence we have
        slg 2mo ago
        The person I replied to stated that a country refusing to develop military tech for moral reasons was destined to fall to a country that ignores morals and develops that tech. I pointed to an example of an aggressor nation that is refusing to use all the military tech at its disposal. Modern society has decided that ethics don't go completely out the window in war and by and large nation states at least pretend they agree.
- s1artibartfast 2mo ago
  I think the better argument is that Europe has a credible nuclear defense, therefore they don't need conventional military. If Russia starts rolling tanks towards Berlin, drop a nuke outside their international waters and announce the next one will be on Moscow
  - nradov 2mo ago
    How about if Russia starts sending troops to "protect" the ethnic Russian population in Latvia? Would the USA, UK, and/or France really threaten to nuke Moscow and start WW3 in that scenario? It's better to have a credible conventional deterrent and a range of possible responses instead of betting everything on an all-or-nothing nuclear response.
    - LargoLasskhyfv 2mo ago
      What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied instead? I've found that to be rather entertaining, when the 1st season began. Though only the pilot and 1st few episodes. What came later was just so-so. Enjoy.
    - s1artibartfast 2mo ago
      I dont think they would, but think it would work if they did
      - nradov 2mo ago
        Small comfort to countries on the Russian border.

megous 2mo ago

Dunno where the idea that defence or defensive weapons are somehow morally better comes from. It really depends on who's using them and what they're used to defend.

JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
> where the idea that defence or defensive weapons are somehow morally better comes from As a category, I think it's safe to say that defensive weapons tend to be more morally defensible than purely-offensive ones. Of course the circumstances matter. But that doesn't mean we can't make generalisations.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]