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

Silicon Valley is transforming the military-industrial complex? (2024)

costsofwar.watson.brown.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 405 posts

Re: Silicon Valley is transforming the military-industrial complex? (2024)

#381

Post by davidw »

edgyquant wrote: post #135
davidw wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like tech has lost its way recently. It's a huge, huge field, so there have always been people working on 'bad' things, but IDK, I just don't have the same feeling of optimism about things that I used to and I wish there was some kind of movement bringing that back.

I don’t know I think it’s really rich to see people who’ve spent a generation hooking the world on dopamine machines and making society full of hate suddenly act like those who work in the MIC are “going to far.” People working at big tech are complicit in the destruction of communities and the mass depression and suicide of our youth, compared to that wanting your country to have the best military tech is altruistic…

I think there are a lot of bad actors at the top in tech, in general.

Re: Silicon Valley is transforming the military-industrial complex? (2024)

#382

Post by [deleted] »

tessierashpool wrote: post #194
laimewhisps wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see them conflating Zionism and Judaism. 100% of Zionists will reference the Holocaust as one of the justifications for committing genocide against the Palestinians. I think the parent is pointing that out.

I disagree, but you could be right. however, if so, then they should have pointed out this distinction themselves. also, there was conflict between Jewish Palestinians and Muslim Palestinians long before the Holocaust. Zionists were trying to take over in the late days of the Ottoman Empire.

[deleted]

Re: Silicon Valley is transforming the military-industrial complex? (2024)

#383

Post by slg »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #375
slg wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 du…

This isn't about the nations taking actions off the table, it's about: > Serious question: should companies not participate in contracts from their country's defense department? I contend that unless you want your government to be toppled by a foreign invader, companies contributing to your nation's military capabilities is something you should generally be in favor of.

This is from the comment you replied to:

>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.

This is from your response:

>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".

Are you now claiming that all those "I"s are really "companies"? You think you were having a conversation about how "[companies] sleep great at night"?

Re: Silicon Valley is transforming the military-industrial complex? (2024)

#384

Post by slg »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #362
slg wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How is that an argument that demilitarized pacifism is a tenable national policy. I never made that argument. My original comment was refuting the idea that taking a singular option off the table is equivalent to pacifism. Ukraine didn't feel the need to develop a nuclear program, that doesn't make them pacifists.

That explains the confusion. I dont think anyone in the chain made that equivalency.

Here is what I responded to:

> 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.

This person equates not "do[ing] it" with "strict pacifism".

Re: Silicon Valley is transforming the military-industrial complex? (2024)

#385

Post by slg »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #367
slg wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll be as straightforward as possible. Ukraine does not have a nuclear deterrent and yet Russia is deterred from using nuclear weapons ergo Ukraine didn't need its own nuclear weapons as a deterrent to prevent Russia from using nuclear weapons. And when even the "despotic regimes" like Russia are refusing to use a weapon, it no longer becomes a credible threat for the ostensibly good guys to threaten to use. Weapons…

> Ukraine does not have a nuclear deterrent and yet Russia is deterred from using nuclear weapons Ukraine giving up its Soviet nukes in the 1990s was, with the benefit of hindsight, a mistake that has cost over a hundred thousand Ukrainians their lives. Even if Ukraine just had the missiles in a basement, the possibility that it had cracked the control system–or shortened the runway to reprocessing the warheads for a…

Do you think Ukraine would have used nuclear weapons against Russia? How do you think Russia would have responded to that? Do you think that would cost fewer than a hundred thousand Ukrainian lives?

Once again, nuclear weapons can only be a deterrent if your enemy believe you will use them and everyone knows that no nation state has the stomach to use them. Russia doesn't have to fear MAD and yet it is still deterred from using nuclear weapons. What makes you think that Ukraine would choose MAD over their current predicament? Because if Russia doesn't believe Ukraine is willing to commit to MAD, Russia can still invade. It certainly changes strategy, but over the years many nuclear powers have been involved in arm conflicts without using nuclear weapons, including in conflicts against other nuclear powers.

Re: Silicon Valley is transforming the military-industrial complex? (2024)

#386

Post by s1artibartfast »

slg wrote: post #384
s1artibartfast wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That explains the confusion. I dont think anyone in the chain made that equivalency.

Here is what I responded to: > 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. This person equates not "do[ing] it" with "strict pacifism".

"It" is having some level of military capability. I agree with Ajedi32 that not doing it is strict pacifism.

beloch and jump- advocated for some level of national defense as a practical necessity

sophacles- stupidly thought this was an "If I dont, someone will" argument

Ajedi32- clarifies "the question is whether strict pacifism is a tenable national policy in the real world"

The point is some level of defense is required. This point is completely compatible with not taking a maximalist approach to military. It is also compatible with the fact that even Russia doesn't take a maximalist approach to military.

The whole point of the chain is that citizens should not fixate on if companies or people participate in the military-industrial complex because it is good an necessary, but rather what those actors actually doing.

Re: Silicon Valley is transforming the military-industrial complex? (2024)

#387

Post by GOD_Over_Djinn »

shimman wrote: post #133
monideas wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of what people call morality is just their own feelings or interest or some attempt to protect their ego, it's basically just an expression of narcissism. The cultivation of a sense of actual morality requires a lot of study and humility and quieting your own feelings and ego. This is very difficult and most people can't do it, ideally in a healthy society the elites you have are people who can and do do this. I…

This is a very childlike understanding of how people engage with politics across the US. Fitting that immigrant tech workers wouldn't understand the culture then cry foul when rightfully called out on it. Maybe DHH was right.

What was DHH right about? Reference went over my head

Re: Silicon Valley is transforming the military-industrial complex? (2024)

#388

Post by antonvs »

klipt wrote: post #189
antonvs wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> TIL an intelligence agency spying on a foreign adversary is human rights abuse. It is when it's an intelligence agency for a country that's actively committing genocide. Answer a question for me: is the lesson you took from the Holocaust something like "if there are going to be holocausts anyway, I want to be the one committing them"?

What is the obsession with equating the Holocaust with a war whose death toll is roughly 1/100th of the Holocaust (and that only if you include combatant deaths, which the Holocaust numbers do not?)

The point is not the body count. The point is the attempted perpetration of genocide, by people who have been the target of genocide in recent history.

As I said, it's mystifying that the conclusion from being targeted for genocide is "...therefore we must commit genocide against others." I suppose it is consistent with biblical commandments, though.

Re: Silicon Valley is transforming the military-industrial complex? (2024)

#389

Post by pjmorris »

0xWTF wrote: post #64
pjmorris wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. 'The Secret History of Silicon Valley', Steve Blank, is essential viewing, IMO.

Which was written as a call to action. The Valley should remember how trade is kept free, especially all those electronics moving Eastward across the Pacific. Worth reading Mahan if you're confused.

At a guess based on context, is Mahan 'The Influence of Sea Power upon History: 1660–1783', Alfred Thayer Mahan?

Re: Silicon Valley is transforming the military-industrial complex? (2024)

#390

Post by Ajedi32 »

slg wrote: post #383
Ajedi32 wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't about the nations taking actions off the table, it's about: > Serious question: should companies not participate in contracts from their country's defense department? I contend that unless you want your government to be toppled by a foreign invader, companies contributing to your nation's military capabilities is something you should generally be in favor of.

This is from the comment you replied to: >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. This is from your response: >It's more like "if I don't do it then I better hope so…

The "I" a person. If a company has no employees, it ceases to exist in any meaningful sense, so if you refuse to work for such companies you better hope somebody else will do so in your place.

Just to be clear, the conversation so far:

> beloch: It's also completely fine to say, "I don't want to deal with moral grey zones" and refuse to work for companies that do military work.

> JumpCrisscross: Idk, there's something unethical in outsourcing ethical grey areas [working for defense contractors] to other people while reaping the benefits of the peace (or war far from your home) it brings.

> sophacles: "someone else will do it if i don't".... (aka your argument)

> me: That's not the argument. It's more like "if I don't [work for defense contractors] then I better hope somebody else will. [Because strict pacifism isn't tenable.]

You then somehow interpreted this comment as me saying "a nation taking actions off the table "will inevitably become subservient to a despotic regime"", which wasn't at all what I said, so I jumped back in correct that. Then the whole conversation went off the rails.

Post reply on HN