Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 67 posts

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#21

Post by jacquesm »

hnamazon123 wrote: post #20
jacquesm wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A military response plays directly into their hands so no, this does not merit a military response. What it does merit is isolating them and making sure they have no further access to weapons or funds and to assist those that want to flee.

You can't tackle the threat already within the borders without a France-style state of emergency, unfortunately.

And that may be what it will take for a while. But that's a different problem than what to do about IS on territory that they currently hold. One thing that we can do is make it impossible for IS supporters abroad to go to their territory to receive training.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#22

Post by hnamazon123 »

npunt wrote: post #12
oconnore wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've already launched direct attacks on our allies, and more recently inspired attacks on US soil. They are holding territory, are self funded (generously), and are recruiting around the globe. Arguably they are more dangerous than Al-Qaeda ever was. Doesn't this merit a military response? If not, what on earth would?

If you want to cut off the snake at its head, cut the money supply. Its not like we live in some great era of terrorism - there's always been deranged people who wish to destroy and whom get a few followers. The difference between that phenomenon and ISIS is they've secured some land that produces oil, and have a buyer - Turkey. This suggests hard-nosed diplomacy before military intervention, especially as the result…

Islamic State needs oil money to sustain its military, not the terrorists that it sends into Europe. The most expensive cost there is airfare and weapons/munitions.

Additionally, cutting off funding doesn't solve the issue of homegrown terrorism, a la Sayed Farook who is a salaried employee and set up an IED factory in his home. He probably paid for that himself.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#23

Post by jacquesm »

hnamazon123 wrote: post #17
vippy wrote: post #2

Because there's no other way around this but to be political, can't we sort out our crumbling infrastructure, education, and healthcare systems before worrying about blowing up a middle-age, middle eastern cult? Can we not let them get the better of us? Or have we entirely sold out to the arms industry?

They've already gotten the better of us because they're within our borders. Now the choice is between doing nothing, thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine (see: Israel during the second intifada) or trade liberties for security (see: Brussels and France today) until we come up with a more sustainable solution (see: Israel today). They've…

> Now the choice is between doing nothing, thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine (see: Israel during the second intifada) or trade liberties for security (see: Brussels and France today) until we come up with a more sustainable solution (see: Israel today).

That risk will always be there no matter what we do.

> They've already gotten the better of us because they are here and they will kill us because their ideology is fundamentally opposed to Western concepts such as freedom of speech, press, religion, and association. Not to mention gay people existing and women having independence.

No, that's not why they kill people. They kill people because it serves their goals indirectly, it allows them to recruit, get more funding and credibility.

> This is a real choice we must make. I doubt most will choose the first one once its them or someone they know that gets murdered/maimed in this way.

As unfortunate as it is sometimes solutions are not simple, easy and quick.

This on is complex, will be very difficult and will take a lot of time (likely: a generation or more).

Of course that's not going to get you voted in anywhere so instead we'll act rashly, counterproductive and quick and in the process we will be a willing partner of IS doing exactly what they want us to do.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#24

Post by pj_mukh »

oconnore wrote: post #6
vippy wrote: post #2

Because there's no other way around this but to be political, can't we sort out our crumbling infrastructure, education, and healthcare systems before worrying about blowing up a middle-age, middle eastern cult? Can we not let them get the better of us? Or have we entirely sold out to the arms industry?

They've already launched direct attacks on our allies, and more recently inspired attacks on US soil. They are holding territory, are self funded (generously), and are recruiting around the globe. Arguably they are more dangerous than Al-Qaeda ever was. Doesn't this merit a military response? If not, what on earth would?

False. This is exactly what they want. With an idea as "viral" as theirs that is about the dumbest thing you can do i.e. give them more evidence of their bankrupt cult-ish ideas.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi...

tl;dr: The Islamic State awaits the army of “Rome,” whose defeat at Dabiq, Syria, will initiate the countdown to the apocalypse.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#26

Post by hnamazon123 »

jacquesm wrote: post #23
hnamazon123 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've already gotten the better of us because they're within our borders. Now the choice is between doing nothing, thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine (see: Israel during the second intifada) or trade liberties for security (see: Brussels and France today) until we come up with a more sustainable solution (see: Israel today). They've…

> Now the choice is between doing nothing, thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine (see: Israel during the second intifada) or trade liberties for security (see: Brussels and France today) until we come up with a more sustainable solution (see: Israel today). That risk will always be there no matter what we do. > They've already gotten the…

> That risk will always be there no matter what we do.

Yeah, you're correct. I meant significant risk. It's always a risk.

> They kill people because it serves their goals indirectly, it allows them to recruit, get more funding and credibility.

The stated goal of Islamic State is to establish a caliphate across the world. The stated values and de facto policy of Islamic State is in opposition to Western values such as freedom of speech, press, religion, and association.

Yes, these attacks also double as recruiting tools.

> we will be a willing partner of IS doing exactly what they want us to do.

Who gives a fuck what Islamic State wants us to do? This is the most intellectually bankrupt argument tossed around. It literally makes no sense at all.

We need to do what is strategically sound.

If that happens to be what IS wants, why should that matter one iota beyond the strategic calculus?

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#27

Post by hnamazon123 »

pj_mukh wrote: post #24
oconnore wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've already launched direct attacks on our allies, and more recently inspired attacks on US soil. They are holding territory, are self funded (generously), and are recruiting around the globe. Arguably they are more dangerous than Al-Qaeda ever was. Doesn't this merit a military response? If not, what on earth would?

False. This is exactly what they want. With an idea as "viral" as theirs that is about the dumbest thing you can do i.e. give them more evidence of their bankrupt cult-ish ideas. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi... tl;dr: The Islamic State awaits the army of “Rome,” whose defeat at Dabiq, Syria, will initiate the countdown to the apocalypse.

Copy pasting this from below:

Who gives a fuck what Islamic State wants us to do? This is the most intellectually bankrupt argument tossed around. It literally makes no sense at all.

We need to do what is strategically sound.

If that happens to be what IS wants, why should that matter one iota beyond the strategic calculus?

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#28

Post by [deleted] »

hnamazon123 wrote: post #17
vippy wrote: post #2

Because there's no other way around this but to be political, can't we sort out our crumbling infrastructure, education, and healthcare systems before worrying about blowing up a middle-age, middle eastern cult? Can we not let them get the better of us? Or have we entirely sold out to the arms industry?

They've already gotten the better of us because they're within our borders. Now the choice is between doing nothing, thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine (see: Israel during the second intifada) or trade liberties for security (see: Brussels and France today) until we come up with a more sustainable solution (see: Israel today). They've…

[deleted]

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#29

Post by sago »

hnamazon123 wrote: post #17
vippy wrote: post #2

Because there's no other way around this but to be political, can't we sort out our crumbling infrastructure, education, and healthcare systems before worrying about blowing up a middle-age, middle eastern cult? Can we not let them get the better of us? Or have we entirely sold out to the arms industry?

They've already gotten the better of us because they're within our borders. Now the choice is between doing nothing, thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine (see: Israel during the second intifada) or trade liberties for security (see: Brussels and France today) until we come up with a more sustainable solution (see: Israel today). They've…

> thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine

A risk which is orders of magnitude smaller than the risk that you or your loved one will perish in your car. Smaller even than the risk you'll choke on your next meal, or harm yourself putting your pants on tomorrow.

> the choice is between doing nothing

It really isn't. The alternative to bombing isn't doing nothing. The alternative is politics, dirty, compromising international politics. Which, because it involves prime trading partners and sacred cow industries (like arms and energy), that's less palatable than dropping bombs to most politicians, unfortunately.

And it is very very dubious that international bombing campaigns will even 'do' anything positive for our security. I doubt anyone knows, but let's not blindly assume that 'doing something' by dropping bombs is necessarily equivalent to 'doing something constructive.'

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#30

Post by enlightenedfool »

oconnore wrote: post #6
vippy wrote: post #2

Because there's no other way around this but to be political, can't we sort out our crumbling infrastructure, education, and healthcare systems before worrying about blowing up a middle-age, middle eastern cult? Can we not let them get the better of us? Or have we entirely sold out to the arms industry?

They've already launched direct attacks on our allies, and more recently inspired attacks on US soil. They are holding territory, are self funded (generously), and are recruiting around the globe. Arguably they are more dangerous than Al-Qaeda ever was. Doesn't this merit a military response? If not, what on earth would?

Who do you think created ISIS? It's US allies including funding, hardware. Cut them instead. You murder far too many civilians than terrorists with military response which in turn creates more terrorists.
Post reply on HN