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

Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

web.eecs.umich.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 134 posts

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#111

Post by Carpetsmoker »

dwheeler wrote: post #27

This individual recommends that society do nothing even though there are other military powers. I don't agree. Edmund Burke had something to say about two centuries ago: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Absence of a military means a commitment to doing nothing. If all Americans don't take military funding, the result will not be a nicer world. The result of US society…

I don't think the author is against the military, but rather against violence. Quoting from the article:

"There are even signs that the professional military is reaching a clearer understanding than civilian policy-makers of the weaknesses of violence, and the strengths of non-violent approaches to conflict resolution. We may be moving toward the day when trained, disciplined soldiers will be able to move into a situation of conflict and restore civility and peace without loss of life.

That's a day worth working for.

[..]

However, violent actions taken in the name of defense against terrorism are very likely to increase the likelihood and magnitude of future terrorist attacks. We need a combination of short-term vigilance and protection, and long-term efforts to reduce the problems that breed terrorism, both in non-violent ways."

Furthermore, I don't think the author argues for "all Americans to not take military funding":

"No. Mine is an individual testimony, and each person makes an individual decision about how they will spend their life's work."

Which is fair enough.

I think the article is considerably more nuanced than your response makes it seem.

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#112

Post by 8bitsrule »

dwheeler wrote: post #27

This individual recommends that society do nothing even though there are other military powers. I don't agree. Edmund Burke had something to say about two centuries ago: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Absence of a military means a commitment to doing nothing. If all Americans don't take military funding, the result will not be a nicer world. The result of US society…

I read most of the piece and the statement:

Do you try to keep others from taking military funding? No. Mine is an individual testimony, and each person makes an individual decision about how they will spend their life's work.

does not translate to "recommends that society do nothing".

So your extrapolation doesn't work, nor does it address the thrust of the piece.

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#113

Post by peacebro »

bassman9000 wrote: post #88
orf wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think Russia or China would launch a ground invasion of a nuclear capable country in a different continent, for no other reason that it looked a bit weak? I wonder why the Russians are not launching invasions of several resource rich African countries as we speak. I agree that currently the US protects strategic sea routes that benefit the US, and as a byproduct other countries. That's fine, and the seas have alw…

At some point, yes, they would. The whole point of the article is that people with the technical knowledge to maintain and improve the US miltary shouldn't do it. Luckily, reaching a critical mass of scientists and engineers with such attitude, enough for basic defense systems to fail, seems unlikely. But there's such an horizon. I wonder why the Russians are not launching invasions of several resource rich African c…

This is a tough crowd for promoting nationalism.

One may have limited success, for instance, convincing the HN crowd that snowden giving up secrets to adversaries is always wrong from the American perspective.

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#114

Post by aswanson »

landryraccoon wrote: post #104
orf wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things where a little bit different back then, don't you think? Do you believe nothing that's happened in the last 70 years (most notably nuclear weapons) changes this scenario at all? There are also many fictional shows on Amazon, should we use them to guide us?

I don't think philosophically this helps the case that armed forces are unnecessary. All it argues is that a nation needs a nuclear armed force instead of a conventional one to stay independent. If a nation has no nuclear weapons and cannot compete conventionally, it could be bullied. Take Ukraine for example - would they really be worse off if they kept some nukes? Perhaps Russia would be deterred from aggression if…

I think Ukraine example shows the weakness in the single point of failure NATO model, with the U.S. as the current failure point. Our current leadership is less committed to NATO, and Putin pounces. I think a European alliance, with a strong military force led by England, Germany, & France, needs to think about a more localized force to check Putin's aggression.

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#115

Post by lostlogin »

gaius wrote: post #95
lostlogin wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does this argument factor in a century of the civilised west bombing the region and arming some of the worst governments in the modern world.

Umm, because there is no such thing as a time machine? Any serious proposals have to start with the state of the world as it presently is.

A century of fighting would suggest that most violent methods have been tried.

What is your serious suggestion?

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#116

Post by nickpsecurity »

jasode wrote: post #15

>, after completing my PhD thesis on cognitive maps, I found that the only funding agency that was interested in supporting my research wanted to build smart cruise missiles that could find their way to their targets. This was not what I wanted my life's work to support. But if the military really really wanted to, couldn't it just "launder" their funding via "worthy humanitarian" causes? The government could find a…

They already do that for black programs with cover stories and front organizations for spy agencies. So, there's certainly precedent.

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#117

Post by mmirate3 »

orf wrote: post #83
bassman9000 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps I'm naive, but you're saying that without your grossly overpowered military the USA would be overtaken by... Mexico? Canada? This is textbook naive. China/Russia, to begin with. Plus: there doesn't need to be a imminent invasion danger. Without the US protection of commercial sea routes, global economy would suffer a serious blow, which would affect Asian and South American countries way more than the US.

You think Russia or China would launch a ground invasion of a nuclear capable country in a different continent, for no other reason that it looked a bit weak? I wonder why the Russians are not launching invasions of several resource rich African countries as we speak. I agree that currently the US protects strategic sea routes that benefit the US, and as a byproduct other countries. That's fine, and the seas have alw…

> You think Russia or China would launch a ground invasion of a nuclear capable country in a different continent, for no other reason that it looked a bit weak?

A nuclear arsenal is nothing without trained and loyal personnel to secure it and to operate and maintain it correctly. If your army is weak enough or makes bad enough decisions, enemy troops can blow the nukes up, kill the nukes' operators, or even sabotage them in a variety of ways.

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#118

Post by mkhattab »

Perhaps we need to distinguish, if at all possible these days, between the military and the military industrial complex. I don't believe the military is inherently evil but think it's necessary to the defense of the country. The military industrial complex, on the other hand, is in the business of warfare and perhaps not as necessary as we might think.

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#119

Post by philwelch »

orf wrote: post #55
dwheeler wrote: post #27

This individual recommends that society do nothing even though there are other military powers. I don't agree. Edmund Burke had something to say about two centuries ago: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Absence of a military means a commitment to doing nothing. If all Americans don't take military funding, the result will not be a nicer world. The result of US society…

> The result of US society following this advice would be the subjugation of the US, and possibly all western democracies, by other countries. This seems to be a common sentiment in the USA. Perhaps I'm naive, but you're saying that without your grossly overpowered military the USA would be overtaken by... Mexico? Canada? I think it's a bit reductionist to simply say "less army = we die". Things are more complex than…

The US wouldn’t necessarily be overrun, but Syria already almost certainly will, and a unilateral disarmament and withdrawal by the United States would also put Taiwan, South Korea, and every NATO member immediately bordering Russia at risk. Over the ensuing decades, the free world would gradually be eroded away by autocratic regimes until, at best, the US and Canada are isolated between two oceans and surrounded by a world of despotism.

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#120

Post by philwelch »

lostlogin wrote: post #91
manfredo wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the US could be "strong" but the US isn't just defending its own soil. It's effectively propping up allies all across the globe. Also, as a percentage of GDP US military spending isn't all that high. It's just over 3% [1]. South Korea is at 2.6%. In most years, Israel outranks the US (they probably could afford to drop their spending because their regional rivals are having very bad domestic problems and are in…

If an allied country is mad keen on military spending and demonstrating their power while you aren’t, why would you spend on your military? Could this be a factor in how other countries operate?

It’s not purely a question of spending. There are qualitative differences as well. No US ally has even an approximation of the US nuclear deterrent or the US Navy. Partially as a consequence of this, no US ally can match the quantity, quality, or versatility of American air power.
Post reply on HN