In practice, countries only independently exist if (1) they have a military or (2) they have an ally with a military who is willing to use it on their behalf. If a country is unwilling to work out its defense, another country will be happy to take it over.
This seems to be a common sentiment in the USA. Perhaps I'm naive, but you're saying that without your grossly overpowered military the USA would be overtaken by... Mexico? Canada?
I think it's a bit reductionist to simply say "less army = we die". Things are more complex than that. And perhaps you're missing the other side of the coin: "more army = more death". The military industrial complex is very real and this narrative benefits them a whole lot.
There is always a middle ground that doesn't result in the world burning or the USA spending 50% of it's discretionary budget on weapons.
Hell, there's even a show on Amazon (based on a book) centered around the idea of an alternate history where the Allied forces lost WW2 and the US is occupied territory.
This is textbook naive. China/Russia, to begin with.
Plus: there doesn't need to be a imminent invasion danger. Without the US protection of commercial sea routes, global economy would suffer a serious blow, which would affect Asian and South American countries way more than the US.
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."""
Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.
Edit: to address a common confusion: this has nothing to do with imposing a rule on others. This formulation only says that you ought to act in conformance with rules that you would want all others to act by as well.
If I choose to behave in a certain manner but don't care how you behave, why would I tell you how I choose to behave?
Based on the below passage, I do not believe they are advocating for military abolition at all. Your comment implies they want to rid the US of any and all military force but his argument is against the violence that stems from militarization.
He wants more peaceful solutions while maintaining military security.
>A true defense of our country would require both resources and research into non-violent conflict resolution methods. Both of these exist, but are starved compared with the technologies of warfare.
"There are even signs that the professional military is reaching a clearer understanding than civilian policy-makers of the weaknesses of violence, and the strengths of non-violent approaches to conflict resolution. We may be moving toward the day when trained, disciplined soldiers will be able to move into a situation of conflict and restore civility and peace without loss of life.
That's a day worth working for.
[..]
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."
Furthermore, I don't think the author argues for "all Americans to not take military funding":
"No. Mine is an individual testimony, and each person makes an individual decision about how they will spend their life's work."
Which is fair enough.
I think the article is considerably more nuanced than your response makes it seem.
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.
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.
does not translate to "recommends that society do nothing".
So your extrapolation doesn't work, nor does it address the thrust of the piece.
> I actually am fairly uncomfortable about it, even if our firm stipulation was that they cannot tell us what to do. We are simply doing what we do anyways - securing software - and they have no say in the matter. I try to convince myself that our grant means a half of a cruise missile doesn't get built.
[0]: https://www.smh.com.au/technology/openbsd-loses-funding-due-...
But if the military really really wanted to, couldn't it just "launder" their funding via "worthy humanitarian" causes?
The government could find a more socially palatable institution (or possibly create one from scratch) and funnels the research money through that. The unknowing scientist then thinks his cognitive maps is fighting cancer cells or detecting crime but in reality, it's going to ultimately end up in a cruise missile. Like a lot of basic research, the knowledge can be legitimately applied to humanitarian purposes so those laundering schemes are not a total fiction in terms of beneficial results for society. It's impossible to disentangle good-vs-evil uses of knowledge or technology.
I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from abandoning their principles but I think the government can invent clever ways of disguising their goals. E.g. A mechanical engineer that wouldn't work on exoskeletons for Army soldiers to help kill people but would feel ethically ok with funding from a charity[0] to help paraplegics gain freedom of movement. Since the scientist can't know the provenance of all funds, maybe he's still helping the Army after all.
[0] e.g.: https://www.unitedspinal.org/
I don't think most pacifists believe their convictions will directly prevent war, or even make it significantly harder to prosecute. But demonstrating convictions can force people to hold a mirror up to their own, and can change what people accept in ways that add up to big implications. I'm not a pacifist, but I'm grateful to Dr. Kulpers for demonstrating that it is possible to make a CS career outside of the military industrial complex. Anyone who participates in the business of war should at the very least consider their rationale beyond "how else am I supposed to find work?"
But that's entirely speculative and it's not really something you can know, or control. What you can know, what you can control, is whether you follow your principles or not. So it's really of no consequence what the government "might" do, or what they "can" do, etc. What is important is what you do.
https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/book/70/chapter-abstract/1...
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2016/07/19/book-revi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Camelot
(I had a sociology class in the late 80s whose professor was a bit bitter about Project Camelot, judging by her comments.) https://www.jstor.org/stable/41303322?seq=1#page_scan_tab_co...
If the military is creating organizations to "launder" money to make it look like it's not going to the military, then it seems to me that Dr. Kuipers has been successful in shifting the culture around military research. And that is no small feat. It may also bring about constructive conversations about the balance between hard power and soft power in international (and human) relationships.
No, you misunderstand. I don't think his approach is naive. My response was about consequences that take on a life of its own regardless of principled intentions. We have to separate the intentions vs consequences. Let me emphasize:
1) if one's moral principle is to not help the military, then one can stick with that principle
2) if one feels morally consistent by not accept funding from the military even if it causes some financial hardship or sacrifices, that's fine too
People have to do (or not do) things that keep them from losing sleep at night. If one has good intentions, then personal actions have to be consistent with that to maintain a clear conscience.
My entire comment has to do with consequences highlighted in this statement: "This was not what I wanted my life's work to support."
My point is that if the work has wide ranging applications, it _will_ support agendas you disagree with even if you don't take funding from the groups you oppose.
I was sensitive to that "life's work support" sentence because I'm working on a tool to let people anonymously match private data with others that have the same private data. The original motivation was letting people like-minded people discover each other without having public knowledge of it be used against them in denying future employment or denying health insurance.
However, one of my dilemmas was that it could also by used by the government and terrorist organizations. Even if I don't accept a check directly from the Department of Defense, it is inevitable they will (mis)-use the technology for purposes I don't agree with.
I think it's responsible for people to know that not accepting money from a group you oppose may not accomplish what you hope. If you think it's better to not know that, please explain why.
> "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. "
Western free society is a hierarchical entity, much like a tech stack. While in tech, the lowest foundation layer is hardware, it is "security" for civil society. The fact is that the rest of society completely collapses if people, companies, and civil structure cease to be secure. History, statistics & a scientific analysis of conflict provides strong evidence for the reliance on military might for building layers of civilization over it.
It is disingenuous to state, as the author has, that this is fully and completely achievable without a military, or use of force. It is also appalling, that while the author's day job is rooted in evidence, science & peer-review, those principles have been ignored in deriving his "truths" about civil society.
What we should be concerned about is the misuse of military power. The way the US is setup, military/executive branch are a lot more accountable to it's citizens than other structures of governance. It allows law-makers (who represent the electorate) to tweak or check abuse and while this may NOT be perfect, it certainly forms the foundation for betterment.
Kuipers says that "the goal of the military is to settle international conflict through violence", but of course, as someone of far above average intelligence, he understands that if you have no military, then (1) a hostile, belligerent foreign power has no incentive to use the tools of peaceful conflict resolution with you no matter how available they are and (2) your sovereignty may well succumb to violence.
Rather, I suspect, what he really means here is that the goal of the American military is to settle other countries' international conflicts through violence, participating in conflicts in which the USA is not even remotely under attack.
If you believe such a thing, then you have a rationally founded reason to refuse military funding of USA origin.
As someone committed to nonviolence, and keenly aware that America has a long history of exporting violence to supposedly solve problems on foreign soil (but never seems todo so), I think he sees his duty as extending to the practicality of violent solutions, not just the philosophical bases, as you suggest.
I'd agree with him on this point. I can't think of a conflict since Korea that was solved (thoroughly and lastingly and without major loss of civilian life) using the US military to invade.
Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Panama, and Grenada.
> One thing that makes the slope so slippery is that you have accumulated responsibility for a lab full of graduate students, and the consequences of a major drop in funding will be even more painful for them than it is for you.
It's basically akin to saying "don't get a job because if you do then your boss might eventually ask you to do something (that's legal) that you disagree with."
Ridiculous.
For some, control is relinquished to VCs. For others, it is the funders of their research, or their bosses.
Most people are not as picky about their ethics as they are about their diets.
That sounds reasonable.
But if not, there is an amount of unethical, unacceptable funding which trumps the good of the grad students it provides for.
Couldn’t some other professor take the available funding, and support those additional students?
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.
"War is politics by other means", paraphrasing von Clausewitz. Its fundamentally backing up one's political positions by force of arms, to impose upon one's adversary.
While there are some jingoistic people who relish conflict, they tend not to be the ones making decisions. This isn't always the case, but militaries know what happens when adventurism runs amok.
That is, wise generals would prefer (imperfect) political solutions to problems, as compared to imposition of will by force. But simultaneously, they know they may be called upon to impose that force.
It may be absurd but it's not unrealistic; there is historical precedent.
Don't underestimate the power of ideology to override rationality.
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.
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.
The military is not particularly well suited to nation building and other peaceful tasks, as we’ve repeatedly seen.
I think your general point is good, but there are people, including people in government, who see war as a low-cost, acceptable means of achieving ends, including rallying domestic political support.
For example, at one point I noticed that over a short time hawkish Republican leaders in the U.S., including John McCain, favored increasing involvement in Afghanistan, attacking Iran (rather than negotiating), increasing involvement in Iraq, intervening in Syria, intervening in Egypt (IIRC), intervening in Sudan (in Darfur, though that might not have been contemporaneous), and intervening in Libya. If you look at a map, that's war in most countries from central Asia to near the middle of Africa's Mediterranean coast.
The GOP, starting before Trump, often vocally disdains the alternative to war, diplomacy. The Trump administration has taken it to a policy level worked to undermine the United States' relations with other countries and openly advocated, including in written op-eds from administration members, 'a return to geopolitical competition' - i.e., the state of things before WWII, which led to centuries of wars. They've abandoned treaty after treaty, and damaged the U.S.'s reputation so that they can't be trusted to adhere to future agreements (which I think is intentional, an attempt make the move away from diplomacy irreversible). The Trump administration openly works against the rule-based international order and openly opposes international law; the alternative to law and order is anarchy; the alternative to those mechanisms is war.
The Trump administration also has gutted State Department; they've attempted to gut its budget (Congress hasn't always agreed), they've cut and obstructed many programs, forced out a large proportion of talent (my vague memory is that they forced or urged out over a third of the most senior officers, who are, as I understand it, irreplaceable), and disrupted hiring.
Why would you destroy the means of diplomacy if you don't seek war?
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.
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"
I'm not saying that most or even a significant fraction of the US's wars up until this point have been justified, but professor Kuipers seems to be of the opinion that violence should never be used to settle international conflicts.
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.
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.
https://slashdot.org/story/12/04/03/1656224/mitch-altman-par...
This is a principled stance, and one I vehemently agree with. I wish more in our line of work would so actively reject associating with those who deal in violence (whether “justified” or not).
The US desired to overthrow Afghanistan's secular government in the 1970s and 1980s so it funded and armed Osama bin Laden and various jihadists to launch a terrorist campaign against the Saur government. Bin Laden had the same principles in the 1970s as he did to the end - when the Pakistani high command handed him over to the Americans (read Seymour Hersh or the Urdu Pakistani press on the handover, the US press printed fictious news on his death ).
What angered the Arabs who flew a plane into the Pentagon was imperial acts such as the US military occupation of Arabia. Propping up the Saud dictatorship which is currently supporting massacres in Yemen and slicing up Washington Post journalists in their embassies.
Bin Laden is a creation of US military funding, he does not make a good Boogeyman for more US military funding.
War happens when leaders choose to go to war. Technology does not directly lead to new wars.
Disclaimer: I'm a recent PhD grad from MIT doing computer vision for military satellite imaging
Wrong. The United States is inexorably in conflict nations whose domestic policy failures cause them to act in often violent ways that threaten US interests. If academia adopted Kuipers' position we would be no closer to peace, and much closer to living under another country's tyranny. Ask the people of Tibet as just one example.
For example, the immediate causes of many U.S. wars later turn out to be false, such as the destruction of the Maine which precipitated the Spanish-American War, the Gulf of Tonkin which began full-scale intervention in Vietnam, and the WMD in Iraq.
But even wars that are justified lead to bad outcomes, as the author states: What war hasn't had the consequences you quoted? Unfortunately, sometimes, those are the best outcomes available, but it's quite a moral decision to inflict that on others.
