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

EU aims to shift European arms industry to 'war economy mode'

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 189 posts

Re: EU aims to shift European arms industry to 'war economy mode'

#151

Post by throwaway655368 »

Etherlord87 wrote: post #93
garaetjjte wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have perfect solution, but "to avoid being defeated by evil we must become evil ourselves" is not really the point. There are things that are lose-lose, making war worse for both sides. For things like chemical weapons we have treaties banning it, while for conscription all politicians are quiet about while pretending to care about human rights.

I'd say balance is important. You can't just say: "I'll start a company, where if a consumer reports he's unhappy with a product, service, I'll just refund his money unconditionally, because that's the world I'd like to live in." Maybe such approach is achievable in the far future, but you can't ignore the harsh environment of your competition and go straight for the ideal approach. And yes, I know you might not cons…

You can't say "How am I supposed to run a company if I can't catch random people on the street and force them to work at gunpoint?" either.

There is nothing naive or idealistic about his position. Forcefully catching unwilling civilians and sending to slaughter is a human sacrifice going against the very idea of human rights. It is pure evil, there isn't exactly a lot of room for shades of grey.

To be honest, when I see the sophistry designed to justify the relegating of citizens to the role of an animal in the butchery by their own state, it looks like a classic horror material. Scarier than the descriptions of atrocities in the warzone. It's like a a cabal of cannibalistic cultists trying to gaslight normal people into thinking that killing those people is (and always was) absolutely normal and it is their very purpose to be slaughtered and it is you a weird freak for pretending that you have some rights and can decide whether you want to die for something or not.

Re: EU aims to shift European arms industry to 'war economy mode'

#152

Post by Etherlord87 »

throwaway655368 wrote: post #151
Etherlord87 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say balance is important. You can't just say: "I'll start a company, where if a consumer reports he's unhappy with a product, service, I'll just refund his money unconditionally, because that's the world I'd like to live in." Maybe such approach is achievable in the far future, but you can't ignore the harsh environment of your competition and go straight for the ideal approach. And yes, I know you might not cons…

You can't say "How am I supposed to run a company if I can't catch random people on the street and force them to work at gunpoint?" either. There is nothing naive or idealistic about his position. Forcefully catching unwilling civilians and sending to slaughter is a human sacrifice going against the very idea of human rights. It is pure evil, there isn't exactly a lot of room for shades of grey. To be honest, when I…

> There is nothing naive or idealistic about his position.

Assuming you can just ask people to risk their lives to defend the state is both. (Not that it can't work in some circumstances)

> Forcefully catching unwilling civilians and sending to slaughter is a human sacrifice going against the very idea of human rights.

No, and I already explained why not: if you arrest an innocent person (or even sentence an innocent person to life in prison), you're obviously harming that person's freedom, but the alternative is to either:

- be perfect and never make mistakes: here's the naivety and idealism again

- resign from the justice system and have anarchy (that's not an improvement by any stretch of imagination)

Similarly with wars and conscription: without it, most (all?) states are too weak to defend and fall. Guess who defeats those states? Competing states with worse human rights (forced draft) or perhaps much worse human rights.

So Ukraine could just allow everyone to run away and let russia win. I can see some hypothetical back and forth between us, where we would eventually agree on a scenario where russia takes Ukraine and maybe some more states outside of NATO but eventually the NATO border stops the advances, and so I won't make an argument that people will eventually no longer have a place to escape to.

Here's the thing, however: people could easily escape before the war. By staying in the country, they agreed to the rules: everyone knew, that in case of war (that was looming for quite a long while) conscription will happen.

Re: EU aims to shift European arms industry to 'war economy mode'

#153

Post by throwaway655368 »

Etherlord87 wrote: post #152
throwaway655368 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't say "How am I supposed to run a company if I can't catch random people on the street and force them to work at gunpoint?" either. There is nothing naive or idealistic about his position. Forcefully catching unwilling civilians and sending to slaughter is a human sacrifice going against the very idea of human rights. It is pure evil, there isn't exactly a lot of room for shades of grey. To be honest, when I…

> There is nothing naive or idealistic about his position. Assuming you can just ask people to risk their lives to defend the state is both. (Not that it can't work in some circumstances) > Forcefully catching unwilling civilians and sending to slaughter is a human sacrifice going against the very idea of human rights. No, and I already explained why not: if you arrest an innocent person (or even sentence an innocent…

Assuming you can just ask people to risk their lives to defend the state is both.

Only in the cannibalistic belief of men being disposable non-sentient material for blood sacrifices on the state altar rather than real humans with rights. It is a question of priorities, not naivety.

if you arrest an innocent person (or even sentence an innocent person to life in prison), you're obviously harming that person's freedom

This only happens as a mistake, which makes your analogy completely nonsensical. No one in their right mind argues in favor of a false dichotomy like "Yeah, we just imprison random bypassers en masse and hope that some of them happen to be criminals. Do you want complete lawlessness otherwise or what?" Forced conscription is not a mistake, it is intentional and official violation of human rights.

Similarly with wars and conscription: without it, most (all?) states are too weak to defend and fall

This sophistry can be adapted for virtually any crime against humanity.

How states without slavery can defend against states with slavery? They don't have a significant pool of free labor.

How states without death camps can defend against states with death camps? Their traitors/potential collaborators/regime enemies are all alive and roaming free.

etc etc

In reality, however, we don't see complete extinction of states with human rights replaced by the most inhumane regimes possible, not even the prevalence of the latter. The reason of that is very obvious: normal sane people aren't exactly enthusiastic to live in, defend or otherwise support the state that doesn't even consider them humans. Specifically in Ukraine and Russia with strong animal protection laws, stray dogs right now have more rights than male conscripts.

Competing states with worse human rights (forced draft) or perhaps much worse human rights.

Yet another sneaky attempt to minimise the atrocity scale. The state strips you of all human rights and sends you to the slaughter. What much worse human rights can you imagine? The state slaughtering you directly? Is that much worse?

Here's the thing, however: people could easily escape before the war.

That's a nice try at victim blaming but they could not. Before the war Ukraine was a usual third world country and like with most countries moving somewhere else wasn't easy at all. Current refugee programs weren't available for Ukrainians back then.

Re: EU aims to shift European arms industry to 'war economy mode'

#154

Post by kranke155 »

boffinAudio wrote: post #148
Wytwwww wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whatever he arrived with, it changed the plans of the Ukrainian government So you're claiming that Ukrainian government was willing to give up all the annexed regions including the territories they still controlled? Because that's what Russia was demanding. Do you have any evidence to back your claims?

https://www.intellinews.com/top-ukrainian-politician-oleksiy...

You guys keep spamming this link but it’s completely irrelevant

Re: EU aims to shift European arms industry to 'war economy mode'

#155

Post by Wytwwww »

boffinAudio wrote: post #146
Wytwwww wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would NATO want to antagonize or threaten Russia directly? That's a serious question because neither the US nor Western Europe had any desire to start any direct or indirect conflict with Russia since 1991.. > missiles close to the Russian heartland. Any factual evidence? In any case you do realize there are Russian missiles in Kaliningrad so following the same logic you would agree that Poland/Germany/Sweden etc…

>Why would NATO want to antagonize or threaten Russia directly? Because the PNAC/CNAC plans for the economic survival of the USA and its western allies depends on the defeat of Russia and the balkanization of its resources? Haven't you been paying attention? The PNAC/CNAC oligarchs and their military junta have made it quite clear for decades that they want what Russia's got...

> economic survival of the USA and its western allies

Don't be silly. Russia is a sidenote from the perspective of the west. Especially the US, they'd much rather focus on the pacific and their internal stuff.

I know Russians tend to be extremely paranoid about everyone being out to get them but that's more of an internalized issue due to historical reasons and the general tendency of blaming external powers for all of their domestic issues...

Re: EU aims to shift European arms industry to 'war economy mode'

#156

Post by Etherlord87 »

throwaway655368 wrote: post #153
Etherlord87 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is nothing naive or idealistic about his position. Assuming you can just ask people to risk their lives to defend the state is both. (Not that it can't work in some circumstances) > Forcefully catching unwilling civilians and sending to slaughter is a human sacrifice going against the very idea of human rights. No, and I already explained why not: if you arrest an innocent person (or even sentence an innocent…

Assuming you can just ask people to risk their lives to defend the state is both. Only in the cannibalistic belief of men being disposable non-sentient material for blood sacrifices on the state altar rather than real humans with rights. It is a question of priorities, not naivety. if you arrest an innocent person (or even sentence an innocent person to life in prison), you're obviously harming that person's freedom…

I'm not a sophist. You're just crazy.

Re: EU aims to shift European arms industry to 'war economy mode'

#157

Post by throwaway655368 »

Etherlord87 wrote: post #156
throwaway655368 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming you can just ask people to risk their lives to defend the state is both. Only in the cannibalistic belief of men being disposable non-sentient material for blood sacrifices on the state altar rather than real humans with rights. It is a question of priorities, not naivety. if you arrest an innocent person (or even sentence an innocent person to life in prison), you're obviously harming that person's freedom…

I'm not a sophist. You're just crazy.

Classic gaslighting.

Re: EU aims to shift European arms industry to 'war economy mode'

#158

Post by margana »

dsq wrote: post #150
TillE wrote: post #4

There was an incredibly stubborn post-Cold War "end of history" complacency in Europe that really should have ended after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Instead it lasted until the full invasion in 2022. What's been starkly revealed since is that Europe is woefully unprepared to respond to any kind of aggression, and aside from France's nuclear weapons, wholly reliant on America. At some point you have to get seri…

Losing the UK's Royal Navy, special forces, and nuke force due to Brexit was also a strategic mistake, due to peacetime conplacency. It would have made more sense to be a bit more flexible with Britain.

It wasn't lost though. Collective defense commitments are much stronger in NATO, which UK is still a part of, than they are in EU.

Re: EU aims to shift European arms industry to 'war economy mode'

#159

Post by dsq »

margana wrote: post #158
dsq wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Losing the UK's Royal Navy, special forces, and nuke force due to Brexit was also a strategic mistake, due to peacetime conplacency. It would have made more sense to be a bit more flexible with Britain.

It wasn't lost though. Collective defense commitments are much stronger in NATO, which UK is still a part of, than they are in EU.

Good point. I think, however, that there is still some validity in differentiating the two. Some NATO countries are outside the EU, and vice vetsa. Also, the US dominates NATO, and not the EU.

Re: EU aims to shift European arms industry to 'war economy mode'

#160

Post by boffinAudio »

Wytwwww wrote: post #155
boffinAudio wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why would NATO want to antagonize or threaten Russia directly? Because the PNAC/CNAC plans for the economic survival of the USA and its western allies depends on the defeat of Russia and the balkanization of its resources? Haven't you been paying attention? The PNAC/CNAC oligarchs and their military junta have made it quite clear for decades that they want what Russia's got...

> economic survival of the USA and its western allies Don't be silly. Russia is a sidenote from the perspective of the west. Especially the US, they'd much rather focus on the pacific and their internal stuff. I know Russians tend to be extremely paranoid about everyone being out to get them but that's more of an internalized issue due to historical reasons and the general tendency of blaming external powers for all…

Tell me you haven't been paying attention to the oligarchs of the PNAC without telling me you haven't been paying attention to the oligarchs of the PNAC ..

The USA is nothing without enemies.

Post reply on HN