There was an earlier version of this document, without the 9/11 discussion of course, on Kuipers' homepage when I was a grad student in the early-mid 90's.
Dr. Kuipers was my grad school advisor at the University of Texas. I found his adherence to principles of pacifism and nonviolence, rooted in Quakerism, to be very inspirational.
Certainly, as a graduate student, I would have had an easier time if we could take DARPA money instead of only applying for grants from civilian institutions (NSF, NASA, etc). I don't regret it.
Yes, many (most?) of our technological advances have come from military motivations. But people like Kuipers who take principled positions of nonviolence help create a vision of a society where that's not true any more. We may never get there, but that doesn't matter.
There's a definitely similarity between Kuipers and Richard Stallman in that regard... taking a strong principled position, even if it's not "practical", can be very important. And both of them came out of the MIT AI lab at about the same time :)
Kuipers trivia: he implemented the Common LISP "print" facility's ability to render numbers as Roman numerals, as a joke, and submitted it to Guy Steele, who was working on "Comon LISP: The Language". Steele included it in the book and now it's part of LISP forever.
> many (most?) of our technological advances have come from military motivations.
If this is true, it is only true because that is where the budget has been. The military doesn't magically beget better more efficient engineering.
Look at the wikipedia page for (D)ARPA, there has been a long fight over what it should fund, war or more broadly applicable research. Some of the defense research labs fund quite a bit of renewable energy, carbon mitigation, etc. How much scientific advancement could we have paid for with the trillions we spent on wars in the middle east?
I have never heard of Quakerism before and found it to be very inspirational too!
I also see similarity between Stallman and Kuipers and I think it's because they both are very coherent to their beliefs. They strongly hold personal values and apply them in day-to-day living, they are able to professionally reproduce their core, personal beliefs.
In Germany (and Japan according to Wikipedia) there's the concept of "Zivilklausel" which is a pledge by an entire university to only conduct civilian research.
The dual use problem remains and there's some loopholes but by and large the universities that pledge to it follow it. Here's a link of participating institutions (in German but mostly a list): http://www.zivilklausel.de/index.php/bestehende-zivilklausel...
Notably 6 states have that clause in their university laws. Since I live in one of them I have only conducted civilian research by default (yay?).
Depriving the world's militaries of research brains isn't going to prevent or lessen violence. Those who reach for violence as a commonly used tool will continue to do so, with or without advanced researchers at their side, albeit with cruder tools of warfare in case researchers do decide to walk away en masse.
Perhaps a more impactful approach would be to resist the use of violence per se, not the tools of war. I can see room for research into non-lethal weaponry that can be sold to militaries and police forces as a turn-key, easy to use solution which, on one hand, leaves room for violent yet non-lethal action, and on the other hand doesn't exact a cost in human lives during conflict resolution. Tasers are a crude prototype preview of what might be possible. I'm thinking more along the lines of perfecting a non-lethal weapon that doesn't electrocute a person while running the risk of stopping their heart entirely. That doesn't count as non-lethal!
In short, the author's stance is commendable if short sighted. IMHO there are better ways to resist violence than simply making a one-man stand.
He is not a consequentialist (nor should anyone be); he is not doing a calculation to try and take actions to minimize the total violence in the world (presumably because he understands this view is a misguided fool's errand, though I won't speak for him). He is just refusing to participate. Unfortunately scientists and engineers don't have a group identity and oaths which tell them to do what is right with the skills they have; our standards are lower than those of lawyers or physicians. Does a physician decide whether or not to use his medical knowledge to murder bad people? No; he took an oath. If he did, he would no longer be a physician. A lawyer still defends Saddam Hussein to the best of his ability. Because he stands on principle. If he succeeds, it will make the world a worse place, but he tries his best anyway. He stands on principle because he has some. But here we see fellow engineers attacking someone for taking a very simple, clean, and respectable moral stand: I will not use my skills as an engineer/scientist to create tools designed to do things I find morally abhorrent. We should all be so principled.
His one-man stand is more about him, and how he wants to direct his energy. There may be better ways to resist violence, there certainly are other ways. Certainly do some of those things, but I think "act locally," as he is doing, is an excellent place to start.
Depriving the world's militaries of research brains isn't going to prevent or lessen violence.
It's not going to increase violence either though, and if nothing else, when it comes to war and violence, maintaining the status quo is definitely better than making things worse.
There's a collective-action issue, though - the status quo is always changing, because other researchers in other countries are changing their countries' militaries. In which case military research that maintains the balance of power can be less disruptive to the status quo than allowing your own country to fall behind. It depends on the international environment.
No one would disagree with: "maintaining the status quo is definitely better than making things worse".
But more debatable is: "Depriving the world's militaries of research brains isn't going to prevent or lessen violence".
Examples:
- smarter bombs that pinpoint their targets more accurately, thus reducing collateral damage.
- Better, lighter armor that increases survivability against roadside bombs, allowing vehicles to safely patrol and keep an area peaceful.
- Better battlefield medical tools like high tech "skin" to wrap over wounds and save soldiers as well as civilians.
- Take down a group's command and control electronics, forcing them to retreat without a shot fired.
We can be clever and surgical in taking out insurgencies which are the vast majority of the conflicts in the world, or just use massive, generalized brute force as has been done for thousands of years with the obvious ramifications.
There's plenty of great reasons to support military research, don't you think?
All four of those examples have the side effect of making military action more appealing. I notice you did not include "monitoring communications to successfully identify target insurgents (Really, insurgencies?)", which might actually reduce "unnecessary" violence.
But there are times when you have to take military action. Someone who is a total pacifist may disagree; that is their right. But the majority does still support the idea. Do you not agree that if we have to take out some baddies, at least we should strive for minimum collateral damage?
Development of drone technology certainly made military action more appealing, one could even take the stance that it wouldn't be possible without in quite some operating theaters (think Pakistan). I don't subscribe to the belief that making drone strikes possible reduced the number of civilian casualties.
It's certainly much more nuanced than black and white, but making it easier to perform certain types of military operations has proven to have unintended side effects.
I am not a pacifist. In fact, I am an American and I am a misanthrope, so I have many positions that make it difficult to be anti-people-death. Plus, of course, I have too many friends and family members who have been in the military, so 'better them than us' is a good argument.
On the one hand, a drone with a Hellfire is arguably better than carpet bombing a village. On the other, though, if our options were limited to carpet bombing, there's probably quite a few people who wouldn't be dead over the last decade. But on the third, if we can avoid friendly deaths and convincingly call anyone who is killed a 'baddie', I'm not sure there is a downside either way.
I have a somewhat similar stance as the author, though not remotely as strong. Its a combination of not wanting to add to the military machine but also not wanting my work to be _tainted_.
Is non-lethal weaponry actually any safer overall?
Say you had some hypothetical situation where you did decide it was morally and legally justified to use force to stop something happening, like a genocide in a civil war or something like that.
How much longer would it take to end the genocide, and how many more people would be hurt and have their means of supporting themselves destroyed if everyone's running around with a non-lethal weapon like a taser or something, compared to rifles?
To a certain extent, when you decide that you unfortunately must use violence, I think it can be better to use a lot of violence very quickly and very well targeted, rather than messing around for ages using other means.
Agreed. You're right, there are cases when immediate and overwhelming intervention is justified no matter the human cost. I think, however, that such cases have become more rare as our civilization has matured (as little as it has!) beyond total war and unfettered genocide. On the other hand, one wonders why the interventionist US government doesn't intervene in what obviously are genocides in Africa, which still seem to happen with sickening regularity.
I suppose my original point was mostly about the glaring lack of effective and side effect free non lethal weapons, while a plethora of traditional person killers remain widely available for a low price.
(v) Pacifism. The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransfered. -- Orwell, Notes on Nationalism, 1945
> Counter argument; pacifism accepts you don't control other countries. World still catching on.
Reality's still catching on … war is, as Clausewitz noted, diplomacy carried on by other means: just as diplomacy is a way to achieve a condition in which one's goals are met, so too is war (albeit a spectacularly unpleasant and evil way). Sometimes the good of one's goals outweighs the evil of war; sometimes it doesn't.
One certainly can control, or at the very least shape, what others do. If not, why do we have laws? Why do we have RFCs? Why do we have common languages?
You're confusing a possible future with the present. Wars of aggression can and often are lost. No country not even the US at the peak of it's power has been capable of beating every other country out there while surviving.
I took military funding for graduate school -- a National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowship. My reasoning was I was studying pure mathematics, and I knew my work had zero possibility of military applications. So by taking their money I was diverting it to purely peaceful purposes.
And their funding was a bit higher than the NSF fellowship, so that choice dovetailed nicely with self-interest.
It would have been a harder choice if my work did have potential military application. I don't know if I would have had the backbone of the linked professor. I admire his conviction.
Couldn't a very good argument be made that military research has actually prevented a LOT of conflicts? Think of what may have happened if the Soviet Union and US didn't both have large nuclear arsenals. There is a very real possibility that there would have been a WW3 between NATO and the Soviet Bloc without M.A.D.
Star Trek provides the setting for an ideal military; we are currently far from an ideal military as the best and brightest leave due to a variety of reasons. Yes, weapons research is needed because you often encounter violent species but research and exploration are above all; a thirst for knowledge is more important than profit. In general a culture (society) we seek money over knowledge. Certain individuals seek out knowledge with the goal of gaining more money. I am not saying all of us are like this but take society as a whole and a large percentage learn solely to earn more money, not for the pleasure in learning.
> And as I watched my colleagues dealing with DARPA's demands for reports, PI meetings, bake-offs, delays and reductions in promised funding, and other hassles, I began to wonder whether I hadn't gotten the best side of the deal after all.
Applies to the startup world as well.
I've done startups in both Silicon Valley and Washington DC, and I have to say: The time commitment is not as recognized as it should be. Folks that build their companies around getting govt funding tend to get good at getting govt funding, which is different from getting good at building product.
I did a postdoc in the US which was funded by a US navy grant. I remember that my supervisor told me that even if our research doesn't lead to any practical application, at least it won't help to kill anyone.
I don't understand. The funding sources he does accept can still be funded by defense groups if they're cruising through proposals. It's ultimately the same pot of money with the same reporting due to the government who will find out the same things from the same sources. Just because you didn't get your funding directly from ONR doesn't mean the DoD isn't funding your research.
It's an interesting problem. Doesn't it mean that in long run, with this set of mind, military will be filled in by people who "care less" about killing people - therefore making the world "worse"?
Maybe having in military people with author's principles is what we need the most?
It's weird how a college professor refusing to take military funding is super controversial, but if a programmer decides to work at, say, Apple instead of a defense contractor, nobody bats an eye.
The comments here are full of people criticizing this guy's position and saying that helping your country's military is better. How many of you are helping the military? Does this principle apply to everybody, or just college professors? Or is it simply that he's public about the reasons for his choice, so people feel a need to argue with it?
A programmer works at Apple instead of a defense contractor because:
- Apple pays a lot better
- Having Apple on your resume is far more prestigious (in fact, it's probably one of the most prestigious names to have on there, and I say that as someone who does not like Apple too much and generally sneers at Apple fans)
- Defense contractors are infamous for treating employees somewhat lousily (see: furloughs)
In fact, I would seriously bat an eye at someone who, with offer letters from both, chose to take a job at a defense contractor rather than Apple.
The main thing the defense contractor job has going for it is the working hours are likely to be standard 9-5 with little or no overtime (as that gets billed to a government contract, so you're generally not allowed to work overtime without special approval). At high-profile places like Apple, unpaid overtime is generally expected to some degree.
That may be true in Silicon Valley, but I got news for you there are tons of programming jobs outside of Silicon Valley or even the west coast. In the DC area, defense contractors are the highest paid folks due to the enormous expenses in both money and time involved with getting someone a clearance.
- "Defense contractors are infamous for treating employees somewhat lousily"
Where do you get this information? I worked as a government contractor for 15 years and never saw programmers get laid off. Sure the big contracting companies (Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon, etc.) have layoffs occasionally when there is a downturn in government funding, but they aren't typically laying off the folks that are their technical bread and butter, but rather folks who are pure overhead (HR, accounting, marketing, etc).
- "In fact, I would seriously bat an eye at someone who, with offer letters from both, chose to take a job at a defense contractor rather than Apple."
This seems to be a rather biased statement. Given the choice to work on software for controlling a satellite, software for data mining social network data to discover members of terror networks, software used for analyzing IED fragments, etc. versus software for sharing vacation pictures, dealing with spreadsheets, playing MP3s, etc. I will take the former most of the time because it is a much more interesting problem space. I also very much enjoy the satisfaction of knowing that my work may have helped save the lives of many people by preventing terrorist attacks.
- "The main thing the defense contractor job has going for it is the working hours are likely to be standard 9-5 with little or no overtime (as that gets billed to a government contract, so you're generally not allowed to work overtime without special approval). At high-profile places like Apple, unpaid overtime is generally expected to some degree."
This is also only partially true. If you are just a low level programmer, sure you work your 8 hours that are billed to the government and then go home. As soon as you are mid-level and above, that is no longer the case. All time spent doing reviews, interviews, internal software for the company, proposal support, etc. is above and beyond your 8 hours billed to the government. None of that time can be billed to the government and you are expected to bill 40 hours per week to contract so the rest of that work gets done above the 40 hours you bill.
I'm just pointing out that that's a really lame comparison. It's like asking why you would choose to go to college and get a high-paying job instead of just working at the grocery store (that might be exaggerating a bit).
No one is going to come down to a choice of defense contractor vs. Apple. They aren't even located in the same place: defense contractors have no presence in Silicon Valley that I've ever heard of. So you can't even make a choice between the two without considering a cross-country move (military stuff tends to be concentrated on the east coast), though there's a bunch in Phoenix too.
A better comparison would be defense contractor vs. working at some small generic commercial company. They can be located near each other, both are likely to have lousy pay for engineers/programmers, and neither is going to look that great on a resume (actually, depending on what you work on, the defense contractor will probably look better).
Plenty of people move to go work for Apple, it's not like their hiring pool is limited to the Bay Area.
In any case, if you think that some small generic commercial company would be a better comparison, then pretend I said that. My point has nothing to do with Apple, it was just a convenient example.
>It's weird how a college professor refusing to take military funding is super controversial, but if a programmer decides to work at, say, Apple instead of a defense contractor, nobody bats an eye.
Apple presumably pays better than defence positions and it considered cooler and more interesting. Working for a university vs defence contractors didn't have the same benefits.
Tell Iran about nonviolent methods. To have an overwhelmingly powerful military in the right hands (Bush Jr. was not the right hands) is a big safeguard against most crazy nations.
Wasn't the internet a direct result of government funded military research? I'm all for boycotting war but I think there is some value in that research.
EDIT: Okay, he addressed that point in his article. However, I'd like to double down on that objection. In this fantastic video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87WK_7lkrVg ), Physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson argues how great projects come into being. He names 3 main drivers: 1. Religion and serving deities (mostly irrelevant in the western world, how the pyramids got built), 2. through economic incentives and 3. as a survival instinct (war). Historically, it's always been one of the three. I think military research is essential for progress and we need other paths to make sure that our nation does not go to war. The solution to war is not scientific ignorance, it's a pacifist population.
Not sure why you were downvoted for this, especially your last sentence. I think it's an important perspective, and as it relates to the author, if he _had_ helped "build smart cruise missiles that could find their way to their targets", that might have greatly helped lessen civilian deaths during war. He says "I will not devote my life's work toward making warfare more effective". Sticking to principle is admirable, but choosing not to use one's intellectual gifts in ways that could reduce innocent suffering is also a choice with consequences. It's just a lot easier for people to ignore "how many I could have prevented from dying" than "how many my work has been the cause of their death." Mikhail Kalashnikov had a much humbler perspective when people asked him about the AK-47 (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jul/30/russia.kateconn...).
This same argument supports your favorite NSA surveillance program.
In fact, the assumption you are making is that the use of violence is a constant, but the effect of smart cruise missiles, etc., is to make it more palatable and attractive.
There's a weird phenomenon in U.S. political system where it's much easier to get spending approved by congress/voters if it's classified as "military". Thus many things that could be civilian projects end up as military.
I grew up in Dayton, Ohio around a relatively major Air Force Base. The presence of contractors of every stripe (Northrop, Oracle, Booz Allen, General Dynamics), and the stories I would hear about the projects and funds they were approved for were mind-boggling.
That is part of the reason I think this stance is so admirable and interesting. I do not think defense spending is inherently negative. But even for those who do believe that in a strong way, I think it would be hard to leave those opportunities on the table and walk away.
Dwight Eisenhower's "Military Industrial Complex" speech noted: "Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Furthermore, he warned "Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite."
At the end of the day, you need to sleep at night. I respect people who listen to their conscience.
Generals always prepare to fight the last war. As we move away from 20th century nation state conflict, that means the successor to the current counter-insurgency conflict. There's a pretty clear implication to that, which removes many of the comfortable abstractions that blowing up Soviet tanks came with.
There's a popular Quaker anecdote in the OP which is worth quoting in full:
"Many years ago, when William Penn converted to Quakerism and pacifism, he was troubled by the thought of having to give up the sword that he wore, a great honor at the time. He asked George Fox, the founder of Quakerism, what he should do. Fox told him, 'William, wear thy sword as long as thee can.'"
It's ultimately the choice of each individual to determine when they can no longer bear their sword.
They are well and truly separate because it is only the losing side that are forced to innovate drastically, that is only the side facing and existential threat.
I also think that these factors are mostly important for the _adoption_ and development of innovative ideas. I don't think going to work trying to invent a better radar is magically more efficient during wartime when you worry about your family being killed rather than during peace time.
"Anyone who clings to the historically untrue -- and thoroughly immoral -- doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forgot this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms."
- Robert Heinlein
This quote stuck with me, possibly due to the force of its presentation rather than its merits.
I thought it would be interesting to present the other side of the debate to HN and open it up to comment. I'm undecided.
Heinlein's viewpoint and the author's viewpoint are polar opposites. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle.
But the OP never says that violence never settles anything, his position is more nuanced than that (emphasis mine):
"In short, I believe that non-violent methods of conflict resolution provide the only methods for protecting our country against the deadly threats we face in the long run. Military action, with its inevitable consequences to civilian populations, creates and fuels deadly threats, and therefore increases the danger that our country faces."
I honestly find his position kind of vague and impractical. He does recognize that the perpetrators of 9/11 and other such attacks should be brought to justice, but suggests that it be done through non-violent means. I would very much like to know exactly what non-violent means he thinks might have been effective at apprehending the Al-Quada bigwigs from a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
When the people who need to be brought to justice are in a nation that is friendly to them and entirely unconcerned about world opinion, economic sanctions, and other such tools of international diplomacy, I fail to see what realistic options there are besides violence. I may sound snarky at times, but seriously, if anyone has any realistic and practical ideas, please say so.
That's more what bothers me about Pacifism - being totally unconcerned with the realities of the world. They just say "find a non-violent way to do it" and then leave somebody else to figure out how to do that. I think it only applies in a few limited situations, and in general, pure Pacifism means you will be dominated by anybody who is willing to use violence to achieve their goals.
I feel that the truth isn't actually on that spectrum at all.
The Human drive to solve conflicts with more conflicts is probably traceable to our evolution. Society has moved much faster than the standard genetic evolutionary feedback loops can deal with.
Unfortunately, this leaves us with situation that people who "follow their instincts" are likely to behave more like chimpanzees than the "ideal human".
Violence leads to the desire to achieve retribution. Those who achieve retribution almost invariably do so through more violence. Catch 22.
Logically, this can be solved in two ways (hopefully there are others, but I can't identify them).
Firstly, the majority (of the world population) recognizes this and agrees to stop violent solutions to problems in favor of mediation and rehabilitation (education, isolation etc.) of those who refuse to to "play by the new rules".
This is unlikely to happen.
Secondly, one side decides to do the Gandhi approach of non-violent civil disobedience, refuses to be part of the violent retribution, and lets the situation unfold.
This also, is unlikely to happen.
Humans have the ability to solve conflicts in many ways. We can compete in games of mental skill (Chess or Go), we can compete in games of physical prowess (Soccer or arm-wrestling), but I've yet to see a real attempt to compete in terms of compassion and understanding.
Until we can debate our differences, decide and agree on who has the best solution for the species as a whole, then we're bound to keep repeating the mistakes of history. Mainly due to looking for the solution in the wrong place.
Ya. He's full of mic drops, like "A well-armed society is a polite society." Empirically untrue but has the patina of credibility and authority which pre-teen me found very compelling. But then I grew up.
"Violence never settles anything" is sort of like "Torture doesn't work." It shouldn't matter whether it works, torture is inherently wrong.
Most people who categorically object to violence do so because they categorically object to a worldview that approves or disapproves of tactics by their results.
The word that sticks out is "breeds". Heinlein was of his time.
I think that Paul Verhoven's satire on the very work to which you refer says it all. In it, the military is made to appear to be an elaborate human sacrifice ... cult run on survivor bias, in the service of creating a self-sustaining elite. The justification for slaughtering "bugs" is never supported. The master stroke is that the bugs are inherently disgusting.
Violence has its uses. But institutional violence uses those parts of human behavior that make us ... crazy.
CSPAN 3 has the Fuulbright Vietnam hearings available. They're worth watching.
Unfortunately, the proper response to that argument requires the counterparty to pull out a weapon and glock the character making it. Which is not possible because, IIRC, a teacher is making that attack on a student. (The power imbalance there leaves that statement slathered in irony, if you like that sort of thing.)
Heinlein is not always spectacular about following through on the consequences of his ideas.
I'll further note that he does not and cannot argue that the issues are settled satisfactorily.
Too bad the Islamic terrorists who perpetrated 9/11, Paris attacks, Brussels attacks, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc don't follow the same belief system. Good luck negotiating with them.
Isn't that the same point that Kuipers talks about with:
> However, violent actions taken in the name of defense against terrorism are very likely to increase the likelihood and magnitude of future terrorist attacks. We need a combination of short-term vigilance and protection, and long-term efforts to reduce the problems that breed terrorism, both in non-violent ways.
Saying that negotiation with terrorists is a lost cause is true to an extent, but Kuipers doesn't advocate standing back and doing nothing at all. Acting overtly hawkish doesn't help anyone either.
Good point. The question is how do we deal with this extremism. The people that are involved in this clearly don't value any human life (even their own) and it seems clear that certain governments use this fanaticism to their advantage (e.g. Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.). As of this moment, a lot of "military" funding goes toward trying to answer this question. It isn't all about building bombs and other weapons, but also in detecting those involved in terrorist activities and putting a stop to it before they can carry out their plans. I will never support cutting funding to such research.
Why would you be interested? Why debate anything? Just jump in and make a comment and then leave because that is the way it should be. I mean that is how all things accomplished right?
The point is that believing that all problems can be solved in non-violent ways is unrealistic. The terrorists who will gladly murder any man, woman, or child to further whatever the hell it is that they are trying to further have never and will never just stop being violent to negotiate. The only way to deal with people who are that radical is through violent means.
Oh and maybe you should get your facts straight. America did not attack Iraq in retaliation for 9/11. America attacked Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in retaliation. America attacked Iraq because in theory there were WMDs there (I will not argue the legitimacy of that because clearly that wasn't the case and in hindsight that was an awful move).
Your argument falls apart precisely because of the violent and boneheaded nature of American governments. America unleashes its military without thinking of the consequences and there is no excuse for it.
So do tell, how would you have dealt with the terrorists that were responsible for 9/11? Just like every good liberal you have said I am wrong without offering an alternative.
Do you even remember that Bin Laden and Al Quaeda were funded by the CIA to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, among other things? America's disastrous history of foreign intervention IS THE CAUSE OF ALL OUR PROBLEMS TO DATE. Don't put your noses where they don't belong and try to learn from your many mistakes. That's all it takes.
Who gets to decide where the US's nose belongs? I am with you that we should never support these knuckleheads like Bin Laden (which we are doing a-freaking-gain with the Syrian resistance), but it certainly has felt a lot like damned if you do, damned if you don't with the US. We get involved in some way and everyone yells that we shouldn't be and if we don't get involved everyone yells that we aren't helping.
Saying that "America's disastrous history of foreign intervention IS THE CAUSE OF ALL OUR PROBLEMS TO DATE" is pretty silly. I bet most of Asia and Europe are pretty darn happy that we intervened during WWI and WWII and I'd be willing to bet that most South Koreans are pretty happy that we intervened during the Korean War lest they be subjects of that little, fat megalomanic Kim Jong Un. Do you disagree with those interventions? If so well then I guess we are done here because we will never agree on anything. If not, then what is the deciding factor on when to get involved and when not to get involved?
The fact of the matter is that we rely on oil from the middle east and we are always going to get involved there because it is in our national interests. Until we have zero reliance on foreign oil that isn't going to change. It would certainly be wonderful if everyone just kept to themselves and we didn't get involved with anything, but that isn't practical. The problems in that area of the world really have very little to do with the US. They have been fighting in the middle east for all of recorded history. Certainly longer than the US has been a nation. Our involvement hasn't helped anything, but I am increasingly of the opinion that nothing will help things over there.
>The fact of the matter is that we rely on oil from the middle east and we are always going to get involved there because it is in our national interests.
Are you so proud of your governments being greedy thieves? Go on then. Continue being arrogant dicks to the planet. It is fair game then that you reap what you sow.
As for WW2, Russia won Berlin. The Eastern Front was orders of magnitude more violent and more destructive to human lives than what Western allies fought for.
As for Asia, if the US had left Korea alone Koreans would have gotten rid of the Kim dynasty by 1980. You fail to remember that South Korea was a dictatorship as well until the eighties.
You also fail to remember that unlike the divided Korean peninsula, Vietnam remained whole because the Communists that you were so scared of won that war. Against the USA. And now the Vietnamese government are also your trade partners.
As for the Middle East, their problems have everything to do with you. From your unconditional support of the blatant theft of territory and resources and the atrocities committed by Israel in Palestine, to the overthrowing of the democratically elected government of Iran which led to extremists taking power there, to the Iran Iraq war where you sold weapons to both sides, to the war against Iraq which gave rise to ISIS, to the war against the Syrian government which strengthened ISIS, you are responsible for EVERYTHING. Every dead body, every lost opportunity for millions of children, that's all on you.
You are clearly filled to the brim with hate and vitriol.
Am I proud that my government has done everything it has done in all of our history? No. Am I proud of the vast majority of our actions around the world? You're damn right I am. We have done a hell of a lot more good around the world in our relatively short history than bad.
Regarding Japan in WW2, your little article fails to mention the reason that the US was conducting economic warfare against Japan. Those sanctions were in response to the atrocities and naked aggressions being committed by the Japanese in China since the begin of the second Sino-Japanese War in 1937. They aren't much different than the sanctions that the world is imposing on North Korea, Iran, etc. for their flaunting of international treaties. I am sure the Chinese who were being slaughtered wholesale by the Japanese are pretty happy we put a stop to their little empire building experiment.
As for Europe in WW2, yes the USSR (not Russia) did take Berlin, but they alone didn't beat Germany. Could they have done it if the US had never gotten involved? Maybe. If so it certainly would have been a hell of a lot more costly in human lives among other things for them. I suspect if the US had just stayed out of Europe completely and let the Germans and USSR beat the hell out of each other we would have never had the cold war because there would have only been one world power at that point, the USA. I have a sneaking suspicion that the VAST majority of Western Europeans are very happy that the US did get involved. You don't hear very many stories of people trying to escape West Germany for the utopia of East Germany and the Soviet Bloc for a reason.
As for Korea, I'd love to know what leads you to believe that the Kim Dynasty would be gone had the US not stopped the North. Maybe you've been to the North Korean unicorn lair (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/30/unicorn-lair-di...) for your source?
As for the Middle East, you are forgetting the fact that there has been almost non-stop conflict there since biblical times and the US didn't exist then. It wasn't the US that started the Israel/Palestine conflict either (http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%20Middle%20East%20The%20...). Palestine was a British territory and the British decided that the Jews displaced by all the hate they received in Europe (by way more entities than just the Nazis) before and during WW2 should have a nation in Palestine. It never fails to amaze me how everyone always talks about the "atrocities" committed by Israel against the Palestinians. I find it appalling that what they have done to protect themselves from their Arab neighbors who have attacked them multiple times and from Palestinian terrorists are "atrocities" while the things done against them are not called the same thing. Strapping a bomb to yourself, walking into a cafe and blowing up a bunch of innocent women and children is not and never will be equivalent to using a missile to kill a known terrorist and killing a few innocent civilians accidentally in the process. The intent of the first case is to target innocents whereas the intent of the second is to target a killer.
I don't even know why I bothered to respond to this ridiculous, hate filled post of yours because one can't have a calm, rational, productive discussion with someone as blinded by hate and anger as you are. I have never nor will I ever claim that America is a perfect place free from flaw, but I am damn proud to be an American and I am proud of all the good that we have brought to the world. If you are too blinded by your hate to see the good that comes out of America, well, I'm sorry for you.
Yes, yes you are the hateful one. You are claiming that Americans are monsters and responsible for all the problems in the middle east and most of the world. I claimed that a man that hacked into the FBI to expose all the personal details of employees of the FBI should be captured and killed. To clarify, I meant killed by being sentenced to death for treason. The VAST majority of the FBI works to do things such as stop the spread of child pornography, kidnapping, and other criminal behaviors and posting all the personal information on those people so that the criminals that they helped put away can potentially seek retribution against them and/or their families is a very serious crime in my opinion. I found it (and still do) quite disgusting that so many people were applauding such reckless and criminal behavior.
In the effort of full disclosure, I also wish the death on anyone who thinks it is fine to murder innocent people through acts of terrorism such as 9/11, San Bernadino, Paris, Brussels, etc. Note that I didn't say every Muslim or everyone from the Middle East or any other broad stroke like you used.
This really needs context in order to be considered a relevant phrase. I've had close friends use it on me when I lost over 30% of my obese bodyweight on a diet. Others use it to effectively say, "healthy living is unhealthy," which is of course false.
I believe such a phrase often comes from a place of fear, as do arguments like, "if you are going to stop doing A, you might as well stop doing B, which also comes from the same roots as A!" Points for imagination but humanity doesn't really hold such requirements for us.
> My position has its roots in the Vietnam War, when I was a conscientious objector
Ah yes, the Vietnam War, a last-ditch attempt to preserve some freedom and democracy (albeit imperfect) from a bloodthirsty regime which killed tens or hundreds of thousands of people, not in war but in post-war executions. Truly, a fine thing to conscientiously object to.
> In short, I believe that non-violent methods of conflict resolution provide the only methods for protecting our country against the deadly threats we face in the long run.
That is a detachment from reality so extreme that it's difficult to imagine that he is able to tie his shoes in the morning. Some folks say that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent; that's true, but only because the competent turn to it before it's their last choice.
Yes, violence is wrong and evil; yes, it is brutal and merciless. It is horrible to see violence, and more horrible still to engage in it. But — and this is the key point — violence is often unavoidable: the choice is not between violence and nonviolence (that choice is easy!) but between violence now and violence later. Which is worse? That's hard to say.
The only thing which enables pacifists to survive is non-pacifists who protect them. Calmly reasoning with (or emotionally pleading with) someone intent on stealing from, raping or killing one does not succeed with anywhere near the reliability of of stopping him with violent force. It's the police and the military which dissuade one's fellow citizens and external powers, respectively, from exercising violence upon one. 'I won't take up arms myself, but I will enjoy the peace and security provided by those who do' makes as much moral sense as 'I won't kill animals, but I'll eat meat.'
It's a free country; he's free to free-load on the sacrifice and hard work of his fellow-citizens, and we're free to think that behaviour fundamentally irresponsible.
>Ah yes, the Vietnam War, a last-ditch attempt to preserve some freedom and democracy (albeit imperfect) from a bloodthirsty regime which killed tens or hundreds of thousands of people, not in war but in post-war executions.
So, the US killed tens or hundreds of thousands of people to save them from being killed later in post-war executions?
Let's put it in real terms: a last-ditch attempt to preserve control of the SE area region and US strategic interests, by people who couldn't not care less about human lives and bad regimes, as evident by the fact that they supported (armed, financial support, good diplomatic relations, all the way down to staging coups for them etc) all kinds of bloodthirsty dictatorships in Latin America and elsewhere.
The same people, for example, didn't have much of a bone with Suharto, for example, killing 500.000 to 1.000.000 people around the same time. Actually, they've helped him, and had him in good standing for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Indonesia#An...
As for the human toll in post war vietnam, besides the bad regime, those things happened following a bloody civil war, with people collaborating with this or that side, what did you expect? Hugs and flowers from those who won but had seen relatives, cities etc perish because of the other side (including people collaborating with the enemy)?
What freedom and democracy? Our side was a ruthless dictatorship too.
You make a good point about violence sometimes begin necessary. But making that point in the context of Vietnam is weird. It's the poster child for unnecessary wars, and for good reason.
> What freedom and democracy? Our side was a ruthless dictatorship too.
It was less bad, and had potential to be more good. As I noted, it was imperfect.
> You make a good point about violence sometimes begin necessary. But making that point in the context of Vietnam is weird. It's the poster child for unnecessary wars, and for good reason.
Thanks for your credit; I really appreciate it.
I completely disagree that Vietnam was an unnecessary war, but it's perhaps indicative of the extent to which its supposed lack of need has become common wisdom that folks have taken issue not with my broader points about violence & pacifists but with the narrow point of Vietnam.
A less bad ruthless dictatorship is a pretty long way from "freedom and democracy," even softened with imperfection. And if that's what you're using to justify years of war, enslaving young men and forcing them to fight, and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, you're going to have a really tough road to travel.
I don't think it's a surprise that disagreement with you is focused on Vietnam. True pacifism is pretty rare. Most people will agree with the broader point that war is sometimes necessary.
I'd hope that your world view permits that there's some room between Christ's pacifism and Genghis' genocidal rampaging.
For those of us who simply don't want to be a tool in someone else's war profiteering machine, pacifism (even if only in word) is a nice counter point to our society's doctrine of total war.
Wow, that's rather strong language, especially given the context. Even in the most strident defenses of US involvement in Vietnam, I have never once seen anyone argue that the safety of the United States itself was at issue. Even if we accept that this war was a fight for freedom and democracy, is it "freeloading" for someone to refuse to fight for the freedom of people thousands of miles away in a completely different country and culture?
In addition, a relatively small proportion of Americans are ever involved in the military these days. Is the vast majority of the population freeloading? Or does it somehow only qualify as freeloading when you avoid the military because of principle?
