U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#31

Post by uptownfunk » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 4:03 AM UTC

npunt wrote: post #19

hitekker wrote: post #10

Side note: I wish discussion boards had a feature where you could upvote literature or some basic articles relating the to topics covered in the OP. This way people who are not familiar with the matter, or perhaps just curious about alternative interpretations could see other sources that the community deems worthy. For the article above, it would likely be an intersection of "War on ISIS", "Military Industrial Compl…

Agree. Current patterns in discussion board designs are very unsophisticated and drive content toward uninformed debate and reader exhaustion, rather than constructing understanding. Our entire news infrastructure (blogs/articles, television, etc) also suffers from similar problems. Its like we can't break orbit of much shallowness, except in relatively esoteric, insular communities online and offline.

Perhaps unrelated, but are there any groups (deliberately non-specific) working to address this?

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#32

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 4:06 AM UTC

hnamazon123 wrote: post #26

jacquesm wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now the choice is between doing nothing, thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine (see: Israel during the second intifada) or trade liberties for security (see: Brussels and France today) until we come up with a more sustainable solution (see: Israel today). That risk will always be there no matter what we do. > They've already gotten the…

> That risk will always be there no matter what we do. Yeah, you're correct. I meant significant risk. It's always a risk. > They kill people because it serves their goals indirectly, it allows them to recruit, get more funding and credibility. The stated goal of Islamic State is to establish a caliphate across the world. The stated values and de facto policy of Islamic State is in opposition to Western values such a…

> The stated goal of Islamic State is to establish a caliphate across the world.

With a bit of our help they might just achieve that. Are you aware that IS is trying to establish itself in Pakistan?

> The stated values and de facto policy of Islamic State is in opposition to Western values such as freedom of speech, press, religion, and association.

Yes, and why does this bother you?

The same goes for many other countries and I don't see us bombing those.

> Who gives a fuck what Islamic State wants us to do?

Well, I do. If my opponent wants me to make a certain move to further his own goals then the worst thing I can do is to give in to the temptation to act against my own interests and in his interests. That's not 'intellectually bankrupt', that's seeing two moves ahead and deciding that the outcome of the most tempting option is actually a net-negative for our side.

> We need to do what is strategically sound.

Precisely.

> If that happens to be what IS wants, why should that matter one iota beyond the strategic calculus?

Because the strategic calculus should involve the long term result of our actions and not taking that element into account will make matters much worse. This is how we got into this mess in the first place. Lots of things that seemed to be good ideas at the time with a very limited strategic horizon in mind and no long term plan.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#33

Post by pj_mukh » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 4:06 AM UTC

hnamazon123 wrote: post #27

pj_mukh wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False. This is exactly what they want. With an idea as "viral" as theirs that is about the dumbest thing you can do i.e. give them more evidence of their bankrupt cult-ish ideas. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi... tl;dr: The Islamic State awaits the army of “Rome,” whose defeat at Dabiq, Syria, will initiate the countdown to the apocalypse.

Copy pasting this from below: Who gives a fuck what Islamic State wants us to do? This is the most intellectually bankrupt argument tossed around. It literally makes no sense at all . We need to do what is strategically sound. If that happens to be what IS wants, why should that matter one iota beyond the strategic calculus?

Because bombing the shit outta them, won't fix it? Boots on the ground means a larger surge of extremists turning into combatants rushing into the place to make their apocalyptical dreams come true (that is the connection to 'what they want').

For America (or Europe) to rush in seems like the most intellectually bankrupt and strategically inept thing to do. A ground war has barely ever solved a problem in that region. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda (the last targets of our ground wars) are both alive and well and would be flourishing even more if it wasn't for ISIS sucking up new recruits.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#34

Post by enlightenedfool » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 4:07 AM UTC

hnamazon123 wrote: post #17

vippy wrote: post #2

Because there's no other way around this but to be political, can't we sort out our crumbling infrastructure, education, and healthcare systems before worrying about blowing up a middle-age, middle eastern cult? Can we not let them get the better of us? Or have we entirely sold out to the arms industry?

They've already gotten the better of us because they're within our borders. Now the choice is between doing nothing, thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine (see: Israel during the second intifada) or trade liberties for security (see: Brussels and France today) until we come up with a more sustainable solution (see: Israel today). They've…

"they will kill us because their ideology is fundamentally opposed to Western concepts..." This is perpetual lie by western media and politicians. Islam has not been more violent than Christianity until may be the last century. Why has that changed. It's because the west wants to impose its values on others. Let people choose and live their lives. If you meddle with them they will meddle with you. Isn't it common sense?

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#35

Post by new_hackers » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 4:08 AM UTC

hnamazon123 wrote: post #17

vippy wrote: post #2

Because there's no other way around this but to be political, can't we sort out our crumbling infrastructure, education, and healthcare systems before worrying about blowing up a middle-age, middle eastern cult? Can we not let them get the better of us? Or have we entirely sold out to the arms industry?

They've already gotten the better of us because they're within our borders. Now the choice is between doing nothing, thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine (see: Israel during the second intifada) or trade liberties for security (see: Brussels and France today) until we come up with a more sustainable solution (see: Israel today). They've…

You scared bro?

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#36

Post by wh-uws » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 4:11 AM UTC

hitekker wrote: post #10

Side note: I wish discussion boards had a feature where you could upvote literature or some basic articles relating the to topics covered in the OP. This way people who are not familiar with the matter, or perhaps just curious about alternative interpretations could see other sources that the community deems worthy. For the article above, it would likely be an intersection of "War on ISIS", "Military Industrial Compl…

At first I said to myself "that is a startup." Then I recognized it bascially exists in the form of the sidebars on reddit's subreddits.

It really helps with content quality because you can somewhat assume hopefully everyone is working from the same knowledge set to discuss a topic.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#37

Post by mhurron » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 4:15 AM UTC

omegaworks wrote: post #8

jemfinch wrote: post #5

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 citi…

-U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, shortly after the death of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin How did we get here from there?

> How did we get here from there?

The rest of that speech was unheeded.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#38

Post by everyone » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 4:16 AM UTC

The military industrial complex in action.

This is the real motivation behind these conflicts.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#39

Post by krapp » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 4:18 AM UTC

hitekker wrote: post #10

Side note: I wish discussion boards had a feature where you could upvote literature or some basic articles relating the to topics covered in the OP. This way people who are not familiar with the matter, or perhaps just curious about alternative interpretations could see other sources that the community deems worthy. For the article above, it would likely be an intersection of "War on ISIS", "Military Industrial Compl…

I experimented with automating something this in a side project by scraping any outbound links on a submitted url - for articles and blog entries those tend to point to references or related material. It works moderately well, but spam links and login links are a problem.

Hacker News could add something like that, and attach it to whatever code is being used to vouch for dead comments, so users could upvote the relevant ones. Combined with something to auto-merge similar stories, you might be able to tease out a decent web of context from posted material alone.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#40

Post by new_hackers » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 4:20 AM UTC

sago wrote: post #29

hnamazon123 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've already gotten the better of us because they're within our borders. Now the choice is between doing nothing, thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine (see: Israel during the second intifada) or trade liberties for security (see: Brussels and France today) until we come up with a more sustainable solution (see: Israel today). They've…

> thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine A risk which is orders of magnitude smaller than the risk that you or your loved one will perish in your car. Smaller even than the risk you'll choke on your next meal, or harm yourself putting your pants on tomorrow. > the choice is between doing nothing It really isn't. The alternative to bombing…

+1000

Arguably, doing absolutely nothing different would be the better option. Knee jerk reactions from a scared population make us much easier to control. ISIS and similar groups want a fight. Unfortunately our sports saturated culture doesn't allow us to see past 'winning', no matter how small the victory. 30 people dead is tragic, but still is quite small compared to the other dangers present in our daily lives.