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

Where things stand with the Department of War

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 862 posts

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#651

Post by jwkpiano1 »

krapp wrote: post #196
jwkpiano1 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It very much still exists, and statements like this are what’s called “obeying in advance.” Don’t do it.

I'm sorry but it does not very much still exist. Otherwise, Congress would be doing something other than praying for the Anointed One and his holy war. I'm not obeying in advance, but I'm not giving lip service to normality, either.

You are. Congress could stop this right now if they wanted. That they aren’t is of course a problem, but that’s very different than saying the system of checks and balances doesn’t exist. The latter is giving the executive power it doesn’t have.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#652

Post by jwkpiano1 »

karmasimida wrote: post #241
jwkpiano1 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It very much still exists, and statements like this are what’s called “obeying in advance.” Don’t do it.

You should respect the government’s choice. It is elected after all

The executive doesn’t pass laws. Congress created the Department of Defense. Only Congress can rename it. The executive being elected is irrelevant to this point. The Constitution actually matters.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#653

Post by throwpoaster »

mckn1ght wrote: post #325
jadar wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You don’t need religion for ethics or worldview. How about: we all appear here on this rock, none of us know why, we’re all in it together, we all struggle, none of us know if we’re alone in this universe or what the universe really is. This unifies us all and puts us on an even playing field. We should be compassionate to one another as we all come from the same circumstance. We can create a concept of god to explai…

This kind of argument, while moral on a surface level, belies a misunderstanding of human nature. In Jungian terms, it assumes that the shadow self either does not exist or has been fully integrated without confrontation.

Once one has enough power and experience to achieve one’s goals despite opposition, and to use others instrumentally, the moral calculus can become difficult. We do not all start from the same circumstances: I am writing this on a phone produced by slave labour.

As Lenin might have said: “compassion for whom?”

You say “God is a choice”. Solipsism is a choice.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#654

Post by ChoGGi »

hax0ron3 wrote: post #287
BryantD wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also in Good Will Hunting , when Will (Matt Damon) delivers a scathing job rejection to the NSA. 1997. The War on Terror has a lot to answer for. https://youtu.be/tH0bTpwQL7U

The late 90s were full of media that questioned reality and authority - like X-Files, The Matrix, Dark City, all sorts of websites about conspiracy theories and UFOs, etc. The zeitgeist was full of speculation about hidden truths. The cultural mood was defiant and sardonic. There was rap, rap-rock, Beavis and Butthead, Fight Club, Office Space... One of the most popular pro wrestlers in the world played a character w…

> Then after 9/11 it kinda seemed like suddenly the TV shows were all about cops and soldiers.

There were some rare exceptions like Veep

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#655

Post by jwkpiano1 »

krapp wrote: post #198
jghn wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the DoD u tip congress says otherwise

Congress hasn't said otherwise, so...

This isn’t how this works. Laws don’t change just because the executive decides it’s going to ignore them. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/111

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#656

Post by jwkpiano1 »

charcircuit wrote: post #333
jghn wrote: post #84

Could they please start using the correct name? Department of Defense?

Department of War is correct. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/rest...

Executive orders aren’t laws. This is: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/111.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#657

Post by ChoGGi »

DANmode wrote: post #402
hax0ron3 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The late 90s were full of media that questioned reality and authority - like X-Files, The Matrix, Dark City, all sorts of websites about conspiracy theories and UFOs, etc. The zeitgeist was full of speculation about hidden truths. The cultural mood was defiant and sardonic. There was rap, rap-rock, Beavis and Butthead, Fight Club, Office Space... One of the most popular pro wrestlers in the world played a character w…

The release date of the show 24 is fun.

What is Nov 6 2001?

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#658

Post by curt15 »

dotancohen wrote: post #347
komali2 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about Americans. What genuine threat did Venezuela or Iran pose to Americans ? Corporate interests don't count.

Do you not perceive a threat from a country with nuclear capability that chants "Death to America, Death to Israel" to be a threat to America? Venezuela I don't know about, but Iran was (is) most certainly a threat to America.

Iran with nukes can't hold a candle to the threat posed by the USSR. Your logic would have turned the Cold War into a shooting war.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#659

Post by dormento »

bradleyjg wrote: post #118
asveikau wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No war since has been even close to as unpopular or frankly as salient. Iraq. Spoiler alert, a bunch of the current ones are going to be seen similarly too. Also keep in mind when making comparisons that the Vietnam war was not unpopular with Americans at the beginning, and many people justified it all throughout, using language that will be similar to observers of later wars.

> Iraq Not in same ballpark. There’s no Iraq generation the way there’s a Vietnam one. > Spoiler alert, a bunch of the current ones are going to be seen similarly too. No they won’t. The lack of a draft and mass domestic casualties dramatically changes the picture. Especially on the saliency axis.

> There’s no Iraq generation the way there’s a Vietnam one.

And if autonomous weapons become the norm, _there will never be_.

Imagine a future where people just don't question wars on their ethical basis, since it happens far away and "no one is hurt".

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#660

Post by herewulf »

nostromo wrote: post #304
tedd4u wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s a “warfighter?” Do they come from the “Gulf of America?” We used to call them servicemen or service members. Emphasizing they served the people. I guess that’s too effeminate for our roided up and ironically hyper-insecure Secretary of Defense.

Warfighter is not a new term and has been used in the military since at least the 1990s and was used by Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden, and Trump. Service members are anyone serving in the military. Warfighter is used to describe combat roles. If useful to distinguish between the two, warfighter is the correct term.

You're right about the age of the term but it's nothing to do with combat, but rather just a nice sounding umbrella term that makes talking about joint forces easier because every military service has their own special name for their personnel (soldiers, sailors, Marines, etc..).

The POGiest of POGs are "warfighters" and individual organizations within the DoD proudly advertise how they serve runny eggs and chicken to warfighters every day or issue their uniforms/equipment with incredible lethargy or maintain their personnel records in 20+ different systems duct taped together.

"Service member" does get used a lot still. Usually abbreviated to "SM".

Source: Personal experience in both combat arms and non combat arms roles.

Post reply on HN