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

121–130 of 134 posts

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

#121

Post by philwelch »

randcraw wrote: post #96
kazinator wrote: post #65

I suspect you have to read between the lines here. Kuipers says that "the goal of the military is to settle international conflict through violence", but of course, as someone of far above average intelligence, he understands that if you have no military, then (1) a hostile, belligerent foreign power has no incentive to use the tools of peaceful conflict resolution with you no matter how available they are and (2) yo…

Kuipers states directly that he believes solving disagreements through violence is ineffective and wrong. He is not talking about other countries, only about the possible sources of funding for his research, namely the US military (and possibly their intelligence agencies). As someone committed to nonviolence, and keenly aware that America has a long history of exporting violence to supposedly solve problems on forei…

> I can't think of a conflict since Korea that was solved (thoroughly and lastingly and without major loss of civilian life) using the US military to invade.

Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Panama, and Grenada.

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

#122

Post by porpoisely »

manfredo wrote: post #110
porpoisely wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Following that line of reasoning, is it better that eastern europe and east asia be under our subjugation? Or is it only subjugation when they do it? We are less than 250 years old as a nation. How did eastern europe and east asia manage before we arrived? Pride goeth before a fall. I'm afraid our hubris is going to cost us big one of these days.

> Following that line of reasoning, is it better that eastern europe and east asia be under our subjugation? Or is it only subjugation when they do it? I'm not sure I follow. Is it your genuine belief that Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic states would prefer Russian hegemony? Or that South Korea prefers Communist hegemony? The reality is that if the US doesn't maintain a strong presence in these regions, then other po…

My belief is that they don't prefer any subjugation. Certainly not subjugation from someone on the other side of the world. Also, you talk of the US maintaining a strong presence in these regions as if we are there to protect or help these regions. We are an invading imperial power in these regions to benefit ourselves, not them. We are no different than russia or china. You could argue we are worse considering the russians and chinese have cultural, geographical and ethnic ties to these regions and we don't.

And everyone is going to prefer modernity to the past. North koreans would prefer their modern dictatorship to the dictatorship of the past too.

All I'm saying is subjugation is subjugation and empire is empire. Nobody likes being subjugated by an empire in the long run.

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

#123

Post by manfredo »

porpoisely wrote: post #122
manfredo wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Following that line of reasoning, is it better that eastern europe and east asia be under our subjugation? Or is it only subjugation when they do it? I'm not sure I follow. Is it your genuine belief that Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic states would prefer Russian hegemony? Or that South Korea prefers Communist hegemony? The reality is that if the US doesn't maintain a strong presence in these regions, then other po…

My belief is that they don't prefer any subjugation. Certainly not subjugation from someone on the other side of the world. Also, you talk of the US maintaining a strong presence in these regions as if we are there to protect or help these regions. We are an invading imperial power in these regions to benefit ourselves, not them. We are no different than russia or china. You could argue we are worse considering the r…

The US is hardly doing what most would consider "subjugation". And for the record, many Eastern European countries are actually asking for the US to establish a presence there. Poland is trying so hard that he's willing to name such a base "Fort Trump"[1].

> We are an invading imperial power in these regions to benefit ourselves, not them. We are no different than russia or china.

When was the last time the US rounded up religious or ethnic minorities and put them in concentration camps? We did it to the Japanese, over half a century ago and it remembered as a point of national shame. After 9/11, Muslims were subject to "random" searches at airports at a higher rate and it was considered unacceptable by many people. Contrast that with China that has somewhere between 500k and a million Uyghurs in "reeducation camps" and most of the populace doesn't seem to bat an eye.

When was the last time the US forcibly annexed territory from a neighboring country? Unless you count military bases such as the ones on Okinawa (which are still part of the sovereign territory of Japan), it was the Mexican American war over 150 years ago. Russia did the same less than a decade ago. And they invaded Georgia not long before that.

To say that "we are no different than Russia or China" seems to be based more on an a priori decision that all forms of international hegemony is bad, rather than thoughtful comparison between the three countries.

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/polan...

> All I'm saying is subjugation is subjugation and empire is empire. Nobody likes being subjugated by an empire in the long run.

I agree. Most countries agree as well. That's why so many of them have a high opinion of the US, and why many of them are asking for US military presence: to shield them from subjugation of neighboring powers.

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

#124

Post by porpoisely »

manfredo wrote: post #123
porpoisely wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My belief is that they don't prefer any subjugation. Certainly not subjugation from someone on the other side of the world. Also, you talk of the US maintaining a strong presence in these regions as if we are there to protect or help these regions. We are an invading imperial power in these regions to benefit ourselves, not them. We are no different than russia or china. You could argue we are worse considering the r…

The US is hardly doing what most would consider "subjugation". And for the record, many Eastern European countries are actually asking for the US to establish a presence there. Poland is trying so hard that he's willing to name such a base "Fort Trump"[1]. > We are an invading imperial power in these regions to benefit ourselves, not them. We are no different than russia or china. When was the last time the US rounde…

If you think what we have done and are doing isn't subjugation, then we have read different histories and different news. Millions of people were killed for us to develop our "strong presence" in these regions. It's called empire building and empire growing.

By many eastern european countries, you really mean one - poland. And by many eastern countries, you also mean a small group of political entities within those countries.

The high opinion of the US stems from our wealth and our cultural domination. Once again, that doesn't translate to a desire for subjugation. For example, if I have high opinion of japan, germany and new zealand, it doesn't mean I want them to militarily and political dominate the US. Certainly I wouldn't want their troops stationed here.

Also, there are protests against US military presence in all these regions as well, but I guess we can ignore those.

I guess our difference ultimately boils down to our view of empire. I don't think they are ever a good thing and they certainly don't exist to serve the subjugated.

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

#125

Post by landryraccoon »

aswanson wrote: post #114
landryraccoon wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree, but the key phrase here is strong military force. There's no avoiding the existence of armed forces; we're really debating how those forces should be governed.

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

#126

Post by manfredo »

porpoisely wrote: post #124
manfredo wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is hardly doing what most would consider "subjugation". And for the record, many Eastern European countries are actually asking for the US to establish a presence there. Poland is trying so hard that he's willing to name such a base "Fort Trump"[1]. > We are an invading imperial power in these regions to benefit ourselves, not them. We are no different than russia or china. When was the last time the US rounde…

If you think what we have done and are doing isn't subjugation, then we have read different histories and different news. Millions of people were killed for us to develop our "strong presence" in these regions. It's called empire building and empire growing. By many eastern european countries, you really mean one - poland. And by many eastern countries, you also mean a small group of political entities within those c…

> If you think what we have done and are doing isn't subjugation, then we have read different histories and different news. Millions of people were killed for us to develop our "strong presence" in these regions. It's called empire building and empire growing.

And yet, the people on the receiving end of these wars generally have positive views of the US and close economic ties after a couple decades. The US's most destructive wars were against Germany and Japan, with are now close allies. An an interesting type of "Empire" where the subjects of the said empire have a positive view of their purported overlord. Or, maybe, the US's coalition of allies isn't an "empire".

> By many eastern european countries, you really mean one - poland.

And Ukraine. And the Baltic Countries. What Eastern European countries do want US presence to diminish? The only ones I can think of other than Russia are Belorussia and Moldova.

> For example, if I have high opinion of japan, germany and new zealand, it doesn't mean I want them to militarily and political dominate the US. Certainly I wouldn't want their troops stationed here.

Well, I've got bad news for you: Foreign troops from said countries (at least Germany) are regularly based in US to train and practice cooperation.

> Also, there are protests against US military presence in all these regions as well, but I guess we can ignore those.

People also protest when military bases are closed. In fact, the current plan to withdraw troops from Syria is being criticized significantly.

> I guess our difference ultimately boils down to our view of empire. I don't think they are ever a good thing and they certainly don't exist to serve the subjugated.

Again, if the US's sphere of influence is an "Empire" it's one that that most of the subjects seem to be happy to be a part of. In fact, plenty of countries have voluntarily joined this group on their own accord. Spain, Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, and Romania all joined NATO on their own accord. In fact, these countries had to apply to join NATO. Strange form of "Empire" where countries apply to become a part of it.

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

#127

Post by boomboomsubban »

philwelch wrote: post #119
orf wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

Right, this is all a fight against despotism. Which is why the US helped Kai-Shek in Taiwan, propped up Rhee for South Korea, and included Turkey and Portugal as founders of NATO.

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

#128

Post by bwood »

jasode wrote: post #79
peterlk wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is too cynical; to the point of being harmful. This argument resonates with me like the argument to not vote because your individual vote doesn't matter. You say that you're not trying to dissuade people from their principles, but the implication of your argument is that Dr. Kuipers' approach is too naive. We do what we can with the knowledge and resources we have. And if people are inspired to action (o…

>You say that you're not trying to dissuade people from their principles, but the implication of your argument is that Dr. Kuipers' approach is too naive. No, you misunderstand. I don't think his approach is naive. My response was about consequences that take on a life of its own regardless of principled intentions. We have to separate the intentions vs consequences. Let me emphasize: 1) if one's moral principle is t…

The author addressed this from a slightly different perspective under the question "The military can use your research anyway, from the open literature. Why not have them pay for it?".

His thoughts basically boil down to a combination of not working on overtly militaristic applications, not approaching the research from the angle of how it can help the military, and certainly not accepting military money even if it seems unrelated.

He acknowledges that his work may be beneficial to the military:

> Do work that makes the world a better place. The fact that the military becomes better too is not a problem.

By my reading, he is satisfied that he is not responsible for the militarization of his research. His research may indeed be misused, but that's an unavoidable in virtually every field and the buck stops at whoever weaponizes it.

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

#129

Post by themattmans »

mcguire wrote: post #108

Ben Kuipers ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Kuipers , http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~kuipers/ ) is an incredibly nice man and good professor, and while I was at UT Austin he was the department chairman at least once. I never took a class from him and I don't even have any funny or embarrassing stories about him. In person, he's sounds very much like he writes here.

I read this piece before taking a class of his at UM and very much respected him for the thoughtfulness of his position in this post. From what I recall I never remember him bringing this up during class. He made for one of the most intellectually stimulating foundational CS courses I took in college. This post still resonates with me to this day.

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

#130

Post by mcguire »

themattmans wrote: post #129
mcguire wrote: post #108

Ben Kuipers ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Kuipers , http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~kuipers/ ) is an incredibly nice man and good professor, and while I was at UT Austin he was the department chairman at least once. I never took a class from him and I don't even have any funny or embarrassing stories about him. In person, he's sounds very much like he writes here.

I read this piece before taking a class of his at UM and very much respected him for the thoughtfulness of his position in this post. From what I recall I never remember him bringing this up during class. He made for one of the most intellectually stimulating foundational CS courses I took in college. This post still resonates with me to this day.

He doesn't talk about himself much. I didn't know he was a Quaker until someone else mentioned it.
Post reply on HN