Anonymous Google Employees Voted Arms Control Persons of the Year

Post by joshuamorton » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 4:28 AM UTC

ambicapter wrote: post #120

izacus wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And as we've seen, it'll eat all the money you can throw at it and even more, even if it means no healthcare, education or basic infrastructure in the country they're supposed to defend. Militarys appetite for money is limitless.

> and even more I find it hard to believe the military spends more than Congress gives it. Military doesn't decide the budget either. Of course a lot of pork is reps spending money in their districts to "create jobs", even when the military doesn't want what they're making [0]. Clearly Pentagon isn't in charge of that spending, or they wouldn't be spending money on what they don't want. [0] https://www.military.com/d…

Post by jka » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 4:59 AM UTC

_ptgt wrote: post #139

jka wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transparent de-escalation is the solution, not the age-old rhetoric of 'staying ahead in the arms-race'. _Most_ people regardless of country of residence or origin want a peaceful and fulfilled, free life. You can never please everyone but arguing from basis of 'fear of the other' is a bit disingenuous and leads to these literal arms races. That's not to say defense spending isn't important, but it has to be stressed…

> _Most_ people regardless of country of residence or origin want a peaceful and fulfilled, free life. You can never please everyone but arguing from basis of 'fear of the other' is a bit disingenuous and leads to these literal arms races. This is all fine and dandy, but some of the most powerful militaries in the world are run by authoritarians who optimize for their own interests rather than what's good for their p…

Post by chrisco255 » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 8:19 AM UTC

izacus wrote: post #113

xvector wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "if you won't help build tools to butcher people, evil chinese will?" It's not that they will . It's that they are . When someone who most certainly does not have your best interests at heart is building technology capable of crippling or dominating you, what response do you suggest? Passivity? The only recourse here is to either convince them to step down or to - at the very least - match them. Anything else puts…

> It's not that they will. It's that they are. [Citation needed] > When someone who most certainly does not have your best interests at heart is building technology capable of crippling or dominating you, what response do you suggest? Passivity? > The only recourse here is to either convince them to step down or to - at the very least - match them. Anything else puts you at a disadvantage and puts your citizens in da…

Post by justtopost » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 12:01 PM UTC

mbo wrote: post #132

throwaway010919 wrote: post #27

> The runners-up in the vote for the 2018 Arms Control Persons of the Year were the founders and co-chairs of the International Gender Champions Disarmament Impact Group... The impact group developed specific aims for expanding knowledge about the importance of gender issues and practical actions for bringing gendered perspectives into disarmament discussions. I find it just a little bit hard to take them seriously i…

I don't understand why you don't think gendered perspectives regarding disarmament discussions are useful. Feminism has a long and entrenched history within peace and conflict studies and international relations, and its insights are often useful, particularly with respect to things like disarmament and post-conflict peacekeeping.

Post by tengbretson » Fri, Jan 11, 2019, 5:09 PM UTC

soraminazuki wrote: post #136

tengbretson wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That only holds true if you consider the military rivals of the United States to be greater forces for good in the world than the US. I would consider that an indefensible position.

Militaries may be a necessary evil, but in no way a force for good.