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

The ties between Silicon Valley and the military run deep

cjr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 111 posts

Re: The ties between Silicon Valley and the military run deep

#101

Post by greggarious »

cmndrkeen wrote: post #99
greggarious wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Perhaps you should revise your writings, because nothing about the sentence would imply the "since then." This is an international forum, not everyone learns the history of US military recruitment practices. If someone is not a citizen of the USA, and not familiar with how it's military functions, maybe they should take some time to educate themselves before debating how it should be used. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ >In the lead up…

So prospective military recruits should make sure that the government's position aligns with their political beliefs before enlisting? What about afterwards? Should an isolationist leave the military when we elect an interventionist president, and vice versa?

Please read my previous posts - we have been "interventionist" since the 70s (if not earlier)

Re: The ties between Silicon Valley and the military run deep

#102

Post by AndrewKemendo »

JohnStrangeII wrote: post #100
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you contribute in any way to the development of a weapon that is used in morally unjustifiable ways, then you're complicit to murder and manslaughter, and you should be aware of that. Then you need to basically move out of society. Every western country has provided funds to develop or employ some kind of military weapon that has led to the death of a civilian at some point. If you pay taxes or are not actively an…

False dichotomy. If they occur as unintended side-effects, civilian deaths can under certain circumstances be excusable. It's a matter of scale and ratio of killed combatants to civilians, of the international laws that apply, and whether there is an international mandate for the military intervention. It's also not a matter of "drawing a line in my own head". There is established and ratified international law about…

My point was, the line in which you think your contribution to the system is impactful is arbitrary. So for example is paying taxes the line for when you should protest? What about living in the state of California? How about being an employee of Google? Maybe it's being part of the program as a PM? Maybe it's a labeler for the dataset for enemy combatants?

So yes, the line of demarcation between when you feel you are complicit with the "immoral" behavior is arbitrary and not based on any legal basis.

extrajudicial killings of political opponents

It's important to note that this is not true legally. It conflicts with EO 12333 [1] [2]. The targeting process for any airstrike (except in VERY rare cases like Op Neptune) goes through a very complex, legal de-confliction process in close coordination with local governments/militaries and is not done for political purposes. In this sense "political" is a term of art, not a statement about the philosophical position of a potential target.

I think the major problem here is the massive disparity with what the general public thinks they know about airstrikes in general and UAV strikes (aka drone) specifically. The general public has about 1/1000th of the information they need to understand it and how it actually happens in practice. The DoD is largely to blame for not being more explicit about this, but there are real concerns with security/secrecy.

[1] https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/execu...

[2] https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/cerl/conferences/target...

Re: The ties between Silicon Valley and the military run deep

#103

Post by UncleEntity »

cncrnd wrote: post #97
UncleEntity wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, the Iraqi people were happy we freed them from the iron-grip of Saddam -- we unfortunately over stayed our welcome. For a while I was seeing a banner on an overpass: "thank you for our freedom, now go home". I kind of think they expected it to be a repeat of Panama with a quick game of "capture the dictator" followed by installing a puppet government but the general level of incompetence (i.e. de-Ba'athific…

Don't fool yourself. The US made life in Iraq miserable through a program of sanctions it refused to remove until Saddam Hussein was no longer in power, these sanctions started in the mid 90s. Estimates of the effect of these crippling sanctions include half of a million dead. US and UN officials had spoken out against the sanctions calling them war crimes. If we destroy a country then oust it's dictator who people b…

> US and UN officials had spoken out against the sanctions calling them war crimes.

You do know those were UN sanctions, involving UN inspectors, right?

And the first Gulf War was a UN action involving a whole bunch of countries? My battalion was attached to a French tank division for example.

Before Iraq invaded Kuwait there were no sanctions and after there were (plus a no-fly zone to protect the Kurds from getting gassed...again), kind of makes you wonder if maybe the two are related, maybe just a little?

So, yeah, I can see why you think the big cuddly bear Saddam Hussein was the victim in all this...

Re: The ties between Silicon Valley and the military run deep

#104

Post by torstenvl »

grumdan wrote: post #15
cmndrkeen wrote: post #8

Everyone acts like military research is obviously evil. Is it really so terrible to research arms for the people who risk their lives keep us safe?

> Is it really so terrible to research arms for the people who risk their lives keep us safe? If this was the only thing the weapons were used for, then maybe people wouldn't be upset about this kind of stuff. The same arms will however also be used to extrajudicially assassinate people based on nothing else than their phone signal, in countries we are not at war with; they might be sold to regimes like Saudi Arabia…

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a single example of any military Google might help that has gone to war based on reasons the appropriate authorities knew to be false.

I anticipate that your response would be to cite the first second Bush Administration's claim of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. Before making that response, I encourage you to familiarize what that term means under federal law (and has meant since 1994). 18 U.S.C. §§ 2332a(c)(2) and 921(a)(4).

In order for someone to believe that the claim of WMDs was a lie, they would have to believe that the Hussein regime did not possess grenades, and that the President knew it.

Re: The ties between Silicon Valley and the military run deep

#105

Post by cncrnd »

UncleEntity wrote: post #103
cncrnd wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't fool yourself. The US made life in Iraq miserable through a program of sanctions it refused to remove until Saddam Hussein was no longer in power, these sanctions started in the mid 90s. Estimates of the effect of these crippling sanctions include half of a million dead. US and UN officials had spoken out against the sanctions calling them war crimes. If we destroy a country then oust it's dictator who people b…

> US and UN officials had spoken out against the sanctions calling them war crimes. You do know those were UN sanctions, involving UN inspectors, right? And the first Gulf War was a UN action involving a whole bunch of countries? My battalion was attached to a French tank division for example. Before Iraq invaded Kuwait there were no sanctions and after there were (plus a no-fly zone to protect the Kurds from getting…

Yes, the sanctions are a result of the invasion. But in their goal of ousting Saddam, they destroyed an entire nation. There are better ways.

They were UN sanctions pushed for by the US but many involved spoke out against them during the period and afterwards. Many more are involved in the sanctions process than the ones who decide on the sanctions...

I'm not saying that Saddam wasn't bad, but we did more damage to Iraq than he could have ever done. We fucked up in Iraq.

No sane Iraqi person is happy that the US got it's hands in Iraq, only those in personal opposition to Saddam who lied to the US in order to support an invasion. Dude, even Republicans have started to see the Iraq war for the abosolute sham that it was.

What, you think the US is a big cuddly altruistic bear trying to free people all around the world? Just don't talk about subjects you know nothing about or speak for the Iraqi people you are not a part of. Congrats, number one stupidest comment I have ever seen on HN.

Re: The ties between Silicon Valley and the military run deep

#106

Post by cncrnd »

cmndrkeen wrote: post #98
cncrnd wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't fool yourself. The US made life in Iraq miserable through a program of sanctions it refused to remove until Saddam Hussein was no longer in power, these sanctions started in the mid 90s. Estimates of the effect of these crippling sanctions include half of a million dead. US and UN officials had spoken out against the sanctions calling them war crimes. If we destroy a country then oust it's dictator who people b…

Saddam was an aggressive expansionist and brutal dictator. There will always be tragic tradeoffs when dealing with such people.

Sure, but in this case it would have been infinitely better if we did nothing at all.

We invaded because of supposed weapons of mass destruction which were not there, it was a mistake pure and simple.

I'm still surprised by the way the American people accept Bush in society with his cutesy paintings when he got the US into this expensive mess. Guess that's what we get for electing a dummy. But hey, as long as he smiles it's cool right?

Re: The ties between Silicon Valley and the military run deep

#108

Post by UncleEntity »

cncrnd wrote: post #105
UncleEntity wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> US and UN officials had spoken out against the sanctions calling them war crimes. You do know those were UN sanctions, involving UN inspectors, right? And the first Gulf War was a UN action involving a whole bunch of countries? My battalion was attached to a French tank division for example. Before Iraq invaded Kuwait there were no sanctions and after there were (plus a no-fly zone to protect the Kurds from getting…

Yes, the sanctions are a result of the invasion. But in their goal of ousting Saddam, they destroyed an entire nation. There are better ways. They were UN sanctions pushed for by the US but many involved spoke out against them during the period and afterwards. Many more are involved in the sanctions process than the ones who decide on the sanctions... I'm not saying that Saddam wasn't bad, but we did more damage to I…

> Congrats, number one stupidest comment I have ever seen on HN.

Pointing out facts (which you go on to agree with) is the stupidest comment you've seen on HN?

And, you know, "people" speak out against everything so that's not really a valid point -- "unnamed people said UN sanctions against Iraq were a war crime, news at 11..."

> Just don't talk about subjects you know nothing about or speak for the Iraqi people you are not a part of.

I was just talking about my personal experience dealing with the good people of Iraq (in my previous comment not the one correcting you for "talk[ing] about subjects you know nothing about") during and after the second invasion, who's speaking for them?

But, anyway, pointless discussion...

Re: The ties between Silicon Valley and the military run deep

#109

Post by mieseratte »

greggarious wrote: post #101
cmndrkeen wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So prospective military recruits should make sure that the government's position aligns with their political beliefs before enlisting? What about afterwards? Should an isolationist leave the military when we elect an interventionist president, and vice versa?

Please read my previous posts - we have been "interventionist" since the 70s (if not earlier)

Your previous post does not answer the question asked.

Re: The ties between Silicon Valley and the military run deep

#110

Post by mieseratte »

greggarious wrote: post #84
mieseratte wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, the implication was that since then we've had a volunteer army. Sorry that wasn't clear to you. Perhaps you should revise your writings, because nothing about the sentence would imply the "since then." This is an international forum, not everyone learns the history of US military recruitment practices. > Weird, I was in my early teens then and somehow managed to suss out this was not the case (as did many prom…

>Perhaps you should revise your writings, because nothing about the sentence would imply the "since then." This is an international forum, not everyone learns the history of US military recruitment practices. If someone is not a citizen of the USA, and not familiar with how it's military functions, maybe they should take some time to educate themselves before debating how it should be used. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ >In the lead up…

> If someone is not a citizen of the USA, and not familiar with how it's military functions, maybe they should take some time to educate themselves before debating how it should be used.

I fully understood, being an American. I found it worth pointing out, out of consideration for others.

> It's too bad no government has ever lied or distorted the facts to push for a war prior to Iraq... astute citizens could have learned from that experience and viewed US government proclamations through a critical lens.

Have you considered running for office? Between your flippant rhetoric and amazing understanding of all issues geopolitical you would surely be a great fit!

Post reply on HN