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

31–40 of 134 posts

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

#31

Post by ThenAsNow »

arka2147483647 wrote: post #8
chrissnell wrote: post #3

"The goal of the military is to settle international conflict through violence." That is misleading. The purpose of the military is to safeguard the interests of our country through its presence and--if necessary--decisive violence. No US military leader wants to fight a war; that notion is absurd. Don't confuse the desires of the military with the occasional desires of its civilian leadership.

With respect, that amount to much of the same with different words. Not that I disagree with you or him, just pointing out that to me you two differ in you points of view, not in substance.

> With respect, that amount to much of the same with different words.

They are describing two different intents; one is to seek to settle conflict through the use of violence, and the other is to accomplish the same end through the ability to inflict violence. The latter does not presume an innate desire to use the instruments of violence, only the will and ability to do so if so instructed.

Deterrence is a real thing and not the same thing as being bloodthirsty.

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

#32

Post by jacquesm »

chrissnell wrote: post #3

"The goal of the military is to settle international conflict through violence." That is misleading. The purpose of the military is to safeguard the interests of our country through its presence and--if necessary--decisive violence. No US military leader wants to fight a war; that notion is absurd. Don't confuse the desires of the military with the occasional desires of its civilian leadership.

Our?

I don't recall you speaking for me. And you are presuming you know where the visitors of HN hail from. Guess what, they're all over the world.

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

#34

Post by astura »

jacquesm wrote: post #32
chrissnell wrote: post #3

"The goal of the military is to settle international conflict through violence." That is misleading. The purpose of the military is to safeguard the interests of our country through its presence and--if necessary--decisive violence. No US military leader wants to fight a war; that notion is absurd. Don't confuse the desires of the military with the occasional desires of its civilian leadership.

Our? I don't recall you speaking for me. And you are presuming you know where the visitors of HN hail from. Guess what, they're all over the world.

It's not incorrect to use "our" in this context even though the speaker's audience is international, "our" doesn't always mean "mine and yours" is can also mean "mine and someone else's," that use isn't event uncommon. We talk about "our family" to people outside of the speaker's family and we talk about "our country" to people outside of the speaker's country. It's natural.

our /ˈou(ə)r,är/ determiner possesive pronoun: our

1. belonging to or associated with the speaker and one or more other people previously mentioned or easily identified. "Jo and I had our hair cut"

belonging to or associated with people in general. "when we hear a sound, our brains identify the source quickly"

2. used by a writer, editor, or monarch to refer to something belonging to or associated with himself or herself. "we want to know what you, our readers, think"

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

#35

Post by hintymad »

fouric wrote: post #25

The United States could certainly be less war-happy, in my opinion, but what happens if some group decides to declare war on another, or commit atrocities, and absolutely refuses to negotiate? Or what if negotiations take months or years, and more human lives are lost in that time than would be through war? I'm not saying that most or even a significant fraction of the US's wars up until this point have been justifie…

Exactly! I don't quite get the sentiment that military is nothing but evil, either. Hasn't history taught us enough? How many peace-loving civilization got destroyed by those who had no interests in producing but looting? Look at Song Dynasty. Look at Ming Dynasty. Look at European cities when Mongolian invaded. Hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered. Hundreds of cities were looted, burnt down, and destroyed. Millions of people were slaved for generations. Trade were banned. Civilization was set back by hundreds of years.

Americans and Europeans may have been in peace and prosperity for so long and got so comfortable that they started to hate everything their forbears have built and fought for. I'm not sure about you guys, but I certainly cherish the literature, the math, the science, then engineering, the philosophy, the political systems (not that they are flawless, but it took us a long time to get where we are), and more.

What a shame.

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

#36

Post by Eupolemos »

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…

This could be true, but I don't think it is.

There's a lot of money to be made in making weapons if there's a war. And the US is constantly waging wars, rarely with victory-conditions thought out in advance.

As long as the money-makers continue to find excuses rather than reasons for waging war, I think there's solid grounds for not wanting to participate.

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

#37

Post by jacquesm »

astura wrote: post #34
jacquesm wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our? I don't recall you speaking for me. And you are presuming you know where the visitors of HN hail from. Guess what, they're all over the world.

It's not incorrect to use "our" in this context even though the speaker's audience is international, "our" doesn't always mean "mine and yours" is can also mean "mine and someone else's," that use isn't event uncommon. We talk about "our family" to people outside of the speaker's family and we talk about "our country" to people outside of the speaker's country. It's natural. our /ˈou(ə)r,är/ determiner possesive pron…

Even then it is still incorrect because it presumes a shared viewpoint with other US citizens. Who might disagree.

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

#38

Post by colonelxc »

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 it differently. They are not advocating against the military, just that they will not participate. They are not trying to say that all CS (or any field) should wholly shun military work, just that they have.

Choice quote:

"""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."""

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

#39

Post by DenisM »

fouric wrote: post #25

The United States could certainly be less war-happy, in my opinion, but what happens if some group decides to declare war on another, or commit atrocities, and absolutely refuses to negotiate? Or what if negotiations take months or years, and more human lives are lost in that time than would be through war? I'm not saying that most or even a significant fraction of the US's wars up until this point have been justifie…

>what happens if some group decides to declare war on another, or commit atrocities,

We don't have to guess - Ygoslavian war in the 90s was exactly that. Atrocities continued until US&UK dropped on the theater. OTOH there is no shortage of situations where US involvement was the atrocity.

So maybe it's not the military per se, it's how you use it.

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

#40

Post by astura »

jacquesm wrote: post #37
astura wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not incorrect to use "our" in this context even though the speaker's audience is international, "our" doesn't always mean "mine and yours" is can also mean "mine and someone else's," that use isn't event uncommon. We talk about "our family" to people outside of the speaker's family and we talk about "our country" to people outside of the speaker's country. It's natural. our /ˈou(ə)r,är/ determiner possesive pron…

Even then it is still incorrect because it presumes a shared viewpoint with other US citizens. Who might disagree.

No its not and no it doesn't; it's extremely clear what the speaker meant, you just wanted to get outraged for no reason.
Post reply on HN